agora inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

[PATCH v51 09/10] Reserve replication slots specifically for REPACK
2879+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]

* [PATCH v51 09/10] Reserve replication slots specifically for REPACK
@ 2026-04-01 17:54  Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Álvaro Herrera @ 2026-04-01 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)

This allows REPACK to not interfere with other operations that use
replication slots.  This eases configurability.
---
 doc/src/sgml/config.sgml                      | 16 ++++
 doc/src/sgml/ref/repack.sgml                  |  6 +-
 src/backend/commands/repack.c                 |  3 +-
 src/backend/commands/repack_worker.c          |  4 +-
 src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c    |  2 +-
 src/backend/replication/logical/slotsync.c    |  5 +-
 src/backend/replication/slot.c                | 80 +++++++++++--------
 src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c           |  8 +-
 src/backend/replication/walsender.c           |  4 +-
 src/backend/utils/misc/guc_parameters.dat     |  8 ++
 src/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.conf.sample |  2 +
 src/include/replication/slot.h                |  3 +-
 12 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
index 422ba304982..a67dd6b9eb1 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
@@ -4638,6 +4638,22 @@ restore_command = 'copy "C:\\server\\archivedir\\%f" "%p"'  # Windows
        </listitem>
       </varlistentry>
 
+      <varlistentry id="guc-max-repack-replication-slots" xreflabel="max_repack_replication_slots">
+       <term><varname>max_repack_replication_slots</varname> (<type>integer</type>)
+       <indexterm>
+        <primary><varname>max_repack_replication_slots</varname> configuration parameter</primary>
+       </indexterm>
+       </term>
+       <listitem>
+        <para>
+         Specifies the maximum number of replication slots for use of
+         the <command>REPACK</command> command.  The default is 5.
+         This parameter can only be set at server start.
+        </para>
+       </listitem>
+      </varlistentry>
+
+
       <varlistentry id="guc-max-replication-slots" xreflabel="max_replication_slots">
        <term><varname>max_replication_slots</varname> (<type>integer</type>)
        <indexterm>
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/repack.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/repack.sgml
index bec18c44cc8..1424446ba7c 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/repack.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/repack.sgml
@@ -293,9 +293,9 @@ REPACK [ ( <replaceable class="parameter">option</replaceable> [, ...] ) ] USING
 
        <listitem>
         <para>
-         The <link linkend="guc-max-replication-slots"><varname>max_replication_slots</varname></link>
-         configuration parameter does not allow for creation of an additional
-         replication slot.
+         The <link linkend="guc-max-repack-replication-slots"><varname>max_repack_replication_slots</varname></link>
+         configuration parameter does not allow for the creation of an
+         additional replication slot.
         </para>
        </listitem>
       </itemizedlist>
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d4c1f0e7652..d932d526235 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -3381,7 +3381,8 @@ start_repack_decoding_worker(Oid relid)
 		ereport(ERROR,
 				errcode(ERRCODE_CONFIGURATION_LIMIT_EXCEEDED),
 				errmsg("out of background worker slots"),
-				errhint("You might need to increase \"%s\".", "max_worker_processes"));
+		/* FIXME rename to max_repack_processes? */
+				errhint("You might need to increase \"%s\".", "max_repack_replication_slots"));
 
 	decoding_worker->seg = seg;
 	decoding_worker->error_mqh = mqh;
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack_worker.c b/src/backend/commands/repack_worker.c
index ff34e246469..610592a05b0 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack_worker.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack_worker.c
@@ -233,8 +233,8 @@ repack_setup_logical_decoding(Oid relid)
 	 * RS_TEMPORARY so that the slot gets cleaned up on ERROR.
 	 */
 	snprintf(NameStr(slotname), NAMEDATALEN, "repack_%d", MyProcPid);
-	ReplicationSlotCreate(NameStr(slotname), true, RS_TEMPORARY, false, false,
-						  false);
+	ReplicationSlotCreate(NameStr(slotname), true, RS_TEMPORARY, false, true,
+						  false, false);
 
 	EnsureLogicalDecodingEnabled();
 
diff --git a/src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c b/src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c
index 09964198550..d83125afd0d 100644
--- a/src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c
@@ -1575,7 +1575,7 @@ CreateConflictDetectionSlot(void)
 			errmsg("creating replication conflict detection slot"));
 
 	ReplicationSlotCreate(CONFLICT_DETECTION_SLOT, false, RS_PERSISTENT, false,
-						  false, false);
+						  false, false, false);
 
 	init_conflict_slot_xmin();
 }
diff --git a/src/backend/replication/logical/slotsync.c b/src/backend/replication/logical/slotsync.c
index e75db69e3f6..28c89c5e10d 100644
--- a/src/backend/replication/logical/slotsync.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/slotsync.c
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ get_local_synced_slots(void)
 
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
 
-	for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
 
@@ -814,6 +814,7 @@ synchronize_one_slot(RemoteSlot *remote_slot, Oid remote_dbid,
 		 */
 		ReplicationSlotCreate(remote_slot->name, true, RS_TEMPORARY,
 							  remote_slot->two_phase,
+							  false,
 							  remote_slot->failover,
 							  true);
 
@@ -1691,7 +1692,7 @@ update_synced_slots_inactive_since(void)
 
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
 
-	for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
 
diff --git a/src/backend/replication/slot.c b/src/backend/replication/slot.c
index d553bd5dbff..2c6c6773ad2 100644
--- a/src/backend/replication/slot.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/slot.c
@@ -152,6 +152,8 @@ ReplicationSlot *MyReplicationSlot = NULL;
 /* GUC variables */
 int			max_replication_slots = 10; /* the maximum number of replication
 										 * slots */
+int			max_repack_replication_slots = 5;	/* the maximum number of slots
+												 * for REPACK */
 
 /*
  * Invalidate replication slots that have remained idle longer than this
@@ -189,14 +191,15 @@ static void SaveSlotToPath(ReplicationSlot *slot, const char *dir, int elevel);
 Size
 ReplicationSlotsShmemSize(void)
 {
+	int			totalslots = max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots;
 	Size		size = 0;
 
-	if (max_replication_slots == 0)
+	if (totalslots == 0)
 		return size;
 
 	size = offsetof(ReplicationSlotCtlData, replication_slots);
 	size = add_size(size,
-					mul_size(max_replication_slots, sizeof(ReplicationSlot)));
+					mul_size(totalslots, sizeof(ReplicationSlot)));
 
 	return size;
 }
@@ -209,7 +212,7 @@ ReplicationSlotsShmemInit(void)
 {
 	bool		found;
 
-	if (max_replication_slots == 0)
+	if (max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots == 0)
 		return;
 
 	ReplicationSlotCtl = (ReplicationSlotCtlData *)
@@ -223,7 +226,7 @@ ReplicationSlotsShmemInit(void)
 		/* First time through, so initialize */
 		MemSet(ReplicationSlotCtl, 0, ReplicationSlotsShmemSize());
 
-		for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+		for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 		{
 			ReplicationSlot *slot = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
 
@@ -373,6 +376,7 @@ IsSlotForConflictCheck(const char *name)
  * db_specific: logical decoding is db specific; if the slot is going to
  *	   be used for that pass true, otherwise false.
  * two_phase: If enabled, allows decoding of prepared transactions.
+ * repack: If true, use a slot from the pool for REPACK.
  * failover: If enabled, allows the slot to be synced to standbys so
  *     that logical replication can be resumed after failover.
  * synced: True if the slot is synchronized from the primary server.
@@ -380,10 +384,11 @@ IsSlotForConflictCheck(const char *name)
 void
 ReplicationSlotCreate(const char *name, bool db_specific,
 					  ReplicationSlotPersistency persistency,
-					  bool two_phase, bool failover, bool synced)
+					  bool two_phase, bool repack, bool failover, bool synced)
 {
 	ReplicationSlot *slot = NULL;
-	int			i;
+	int			startpoint,
+				endpoint;
 
 	Assert(MyReplicationSlot == NULL);
 
@@ -432,12 +437,16 @@ ReplicationSlotCreate(const char *name, bool db_specific,
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotAllocationLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
 
 	/*
-	 * Check for name collision, and identify an allocatable slot.  We need to
-	 * hold ReplicationSlotControlLock in shared mode for this, so that nobody
-	 * else can change the in_use flags while we're looking at them.
+	 * Check for name collision (across the whole array), and identify an
+	 * allocatable slot (in the array slice specific to our current use case:
+	 * either general, or REPACK only).  We need to hold
+	 * ReplicationSlotControlLock in shared mode for this, so that nobody else
+	 * can change the in_use flags while we're looking at them.
 	 */
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
-	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	startpoint = !repack ? 0 : max_replication_slots;
+	endpoint = max_replication_slots + (repack ? max_repack_replication_slots : 0);
+	for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
 
@@ -445,7 +454,9 @@ ReplicationSlotCreate(const char *name, bool db_specific,
 			ereport(ERROR,
 					(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_OBJECT),
 					 errmsg("replication slot \"%s\" already exists", name)));
-		if (!s->in_use && slot == NULL)
+
+		if (i >= startpoint && i < endpoint &&
+			!s->in_use && slot == NULL)
 			slot = s;
 	}
 	LWLockRelease(ReplicationSlotControlLock);
@@ -455,7 +466,8 @@ ReplicationSlotCreate(const char *name, bool db_specific,
 		ereport(ERROR,
 				(errcode(ERRCODE_CONFIGURATION_LIMIT_EXCEEDED),
 				 errmsg("all replication slots are in use"),
-				 errhint("Free one or increase \"max_replication_slots\".")));
+				 errhint("Free one or increase \"%s\".",
+						 repack ? "max_repack_replication_slots" : "max_replication_slots")));
 
 	/*
 	 * Since this slot is not in use, nobody should be looking at any part of
@@ -548,7 +560,7 @@ SearchNamedReplicationSlot(const char *name, bool need_lock)
 	if (need_lock)
 		LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
 
-	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
 
@@ -576,7 +588,8 @@ int
 ReplicationSlotIndex(ReplicationSlot *slot)
 {
 	Assert(slot >= ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots &&
-		   slot < ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots + max_replication_slots);
+		   slot < ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots +
+		   (max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots));
 
 	return slot - ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots;
 }
@@ -870,7 +883,7 @@ ReplicationSlotCleanup(bool synced_only)
 restart:
 	found_valid_logicalslot = false;
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
-	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
 
@@ -1252,7 +1265,7 @@ ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin(bool already_locked)
 	if (!already_locked)
 		LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
 
-	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
 		TransactionId effective_xmin;
@@ -1307,7 +1320,7 @@ ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredLSN(void)
 	Assert(ReplicationSlotCtl != NULL);
 
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
-	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
 		XLogRecPtr	restart_lsn;
@@ -1374,12 +1387,12 @@ ReplicationSlotsComputeLogicalRestartLSN(void)
 	XLogRecPtr	result = InvalidXLogRecPtr;
 	int			i;
 
-	if (max_replication_slots <= 0)
+	if (max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots <= 0)
 		return InvalidXLogRecPtr;
 
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
 
-	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s;
 		XLogRecPtr	restart_lsn;
@@ -1454,11 +1467,11 @@ ReplicationSlotsCountDBSlots(Oid dboid, int *nslots, int *nactive)
 
 	*nslots = *nactive = 0;
 
-	if (max_replication_slots <= 0)
+	if (max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots <= 0)
 		return false;
 
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
-	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s;
 
@@ -1515,13 +1528,13 @@ ReplicationSlotsDropDBSlots(Oid dboid)
 	bool		found_valid_logicalslot;
 	bool		dropped = false;
 
-	if (max_replication_slots <= 0)
+	if (max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots <= 0)
 		return;
 
 restart:
 	found_valid_logicalslot = false;
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
-	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s;
 		char	   *slotname;
@@ -1618,11 +1631,11 @@ CheckLogicalSlotExists(void)
 {
 	bool		found = false;
 
-	if (max_replication_slots <= 0)
+	if (max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots <= 0)
 		return false;
 
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
-	for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s;
 		bool		invalidated;
@@ -1663,10 +1676,12 @@ CheckSlotRequirements(void)
 	 * needs the same check.
 	 */
 
-	if (max_replication_slots == 0)
+	/* XXX we should be able to check exactly which type of slot we need */
+	if (max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots == 0)
 		ereport(ERROR,
 				(errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
-				 errmsg("replication slots can only be used if \"max_replication_slots\" > 0")));
+				 errmsg("replication slots can only be used if \"%s\" > 0 or \"%s\" > 0",
+						"max_replication_slots", "max_repack_replication_slots")));
 
 	if (wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_REPLICA)
 		ereport(ERROR,
@@ -2224,7 +2239,7 @@ InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots(uint32 possible_causes,
 	Assert(!(possible_causes & RS_INVAL_WAL_REMOVED) || oldestSegno > 0);
 	Assert(possible_causes != RS_INVAL_NONE);
 
-	if (max_replication_slots == 0)
+	if (max_replication_slots == 0 && max_repack_replication_slots == 0)
 		return invalidated;
 
 	XLogSegNoOffsetToRecPtr(oldestSegno, 0, wal_segment_size, oldestLSN);
@@ -2232,7 +2247,7 @@ InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots(uint32 possible_causes,
 restart:
 	found_valid_logicalslot = false;
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
-	for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
 		bool		released_lock = false;
@@ -2337,7 +2352,7 @@ CheckPointReplicationSlots(bool is_shutdown)
 	 */
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotAllocationLock, LW_SHARED);
 
-	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
 		char		path[MAXPGPATH];
@@ -2438,7 +2453,7 @@ StartupReplicationSlots(void)
 	FreeDir(replication_dir);
 
 	/* currently no slots exist, we're done. */
-	if (max_replication_slots <= 0)
+	if (max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots <= 0)
 		return;
 
 	/* Now that we have recovered all the data, compute replication xmin */
@@ -2868,7 +2883,7 @@ RestoreSlotFromDisk(const char *name)
 				 errhint("Change \"wal_level\" to be \"replica\" or higher.")));
 
 	/* nothing can be active yet, don't lock anything */
-	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *slot;
 
@@ -2910,6 +2925,7 @@ RestoreSlotFromDisk(const char *name)
 		break;
 	}
 
+	/* XXX might be misleading if the slots previously in use were REPACK. */
 	if (!restored)
 		ereport(FATAL,
 				(errmsg("too many replication slots active before shutdown"),
diff --git a/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c b/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c
index 9f5e4f998fe..78dd3c4ea66 100644
--- a/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ create_physical_replication_slot(char *name, bool immediately_reserve,
 	/* acquire replication slot, this will check for conflicting names */
 	ReplicationSlotCreate(name, false,
 						  temporary ? RS_TEMPORARY : RS_PERSISTENT, false,
-						  false, false);
+						  false, false, false);
 
 	if (immediately_reserve)
 	{
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ create_logical_replication_slot(char *name, char *plugin,
 	 */
 	ReplicationSlotCreate(name, true,
 						  temporary ? RS_TEMPORARY : RS_EPHEMERAL, two_phase,
-						  failover, false);
+						  false, failover, false);
 
 	/*
 	 * Ensure the logical decoding is enabled before initializing the logical
@@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ pg_get_replication_slots(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
 	currlsn = GetXLogWriteRecPtr();
 
 	LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
-	for (slotno = 0; slotno < max_replication_slots; slotno++)
+	for (slotno = 0; slotno < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; slotno++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *slot = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[slotno];
 		ReplicationSlot slot_contents;
@@ -665,7 +665,7 @@ copy_replication_slot(FunctionCallInfo fcinfo, bool logical_slot)
 	 * managed to create the new slot, we advance the new slot's restart_lsn
 	 * to the source slot's updated restart_lsn the second time we lock it.
 	 */
-	for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
+	for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots + max_repack_replication_slots; i++)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlot *s = &ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots[i];
 
diff --git a/src/backend/replication/walsender.c b/src/backend/replication/walsender.c
index 2bb3f34dc6d..75ef3419a15 100644
--- a/src/backend/replication/walsender.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/walsender.c
@@ -1220,7 +1220,7 @@ CreateReplicationSlot(CreateReplicationSlotCmd *cmd)
 	{
 		ReplicationSlotCreate(cmd->slotname, false,
 							  cmd->temporary ? RS_TEMPORARY : RS_PERSISTENT,
-							  false, false, false);
+							  false, false, false, false);
 
 		if (reserve_wal)
 		{
@@ -1251,7 +1251,7 @@ CreateReplicationSlot(CreateReplicationSlotCmd *cmd)
 		 */
 		ReplicationSlotCreate(cmd->slotname, true,
 							  cmd->temporary ? RS_TEMPORARY : RS_EPHEMERAL,
-							  two_phase, failover, false);
+							  two_phase, false, failover, false);
 
 		/*
 		 * Do options check early so that we can bail before calling the
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc_parameters.dat b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc_parameters.dat
index fc0900efe5f..857be159f5c 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc_parameters.dat
+++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc_parameters.dat
@@ -2070,6 +2070,14 @@
   max => 'MAX_BACKENDS',
 },
 
+{ name => 'max_repack_replication_slots', type => 'int', context => 'PGC_POSTMASTER', group => 'REPLICATION_SENDING',
+  short_desc => 'Sets the maximum number of replication slots for use by REPACK.',
+  variable => 'max_repack_replication_slots',
+  boot_val => '5',
+  min => '0',
+  max => 'MAX_BACKENDS',
+},
+
 /* see max_wal_senders */
 { name => 'max_replication_slots', type => 'int', context => 'PGC_POSTMASTER', group => 'REPLICATION_SENDING',
   short_desc => 'Sets the maximum number of simultaneously defined replication slots.',
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.conf.sample b/src/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.conf.sample
index c8194c27aa7..9c3c5d16361 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.conf.sample
+++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.conf.sample
@@ -348,6 +348,8 @@
                                 # (change requires restart)
 #max_replication_slots = 10     # max number of replication slots
                                 # (change requires restart)
+#max_repack_replication_slots = 5 # max number of replication slots for REPACK
+                                # (change requires restart)
 #wal_keep_size = 0              # in megabytes; 0 disables
 #max_slot_wal_keep_size = -1    # in megabytes; -1 disables
 #idle_replication_slot_timeout = 0      # in seconds; 0 disables
diff --git a/src/include/replication/slot.h b/src/include/replication/slot.h
index 4b4709f6e2c..c316a01a807 100644
--- a/src/include/replication/slot.h
+++ b/src/include/replication/slot.h
@@ -324,6 +324,7 @@ extern PGDLLIMPORT ReplicationSlot *MyReplicationSlot;
 
 /* GUCs */
 extern PGDLLIMPORT int max_replication_slots;
+extern PGDLLIMPORT int max_repack_replication_slots;
 extern PGDLLIMPORT char *synchronized_standby_slots;
 extern PGDLLIMPORT int idle_replication_slot_timeout_secs;
 
@@ -334,7 +335,7 @@ extern void ReplicationSlotsShmemInit(void);
 /* management of individual slots */
 extern void ReplicationSlotCreate(const char *name, bool db_specific,
 								  ReplicationSlotPersistency persistency,
-								  bool two_phase, bool failover,
+								  bool two_phase, bool repack, bool failover,
 								  bool synced);
 extern void ReplicationSlotPersist(void);
 extern void ReplicationSlotDrop(const char *name, bool nowait);
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0010-CheckLogicalDecodingRequirements-be-specific-abo.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2879+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2879+ messages in thread