agora inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
[PATCH 3/4] PoC add prune-by-number-of-entries feature 119+ messages / 3 participants [nested] [flat]
* [PATCH 3/4] PoC add prune-by-number-of-entries feature @ 2019-02-06 05:36 Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Kyotaro Horiguchi @ 2019-02-06 05:36 UTC (permalink / raw) Adds prune based on the number of cache entries on top of the current pruning patch. It is controlled by two GUC variables. cache_entry_limit: limit of the number of entries per catcache cache_entry_limit_prune_ratio: how much of entries to remove at pruning --- src/backend/utils/cache/catcache.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c | 40 +++++++++++++++ src/include/utils/catcache.h | 2 + 3 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/backend/utils/cache/catcache.c b/src/backend/utils/cache/catcache.c index 4ccda06795..d15eac87d8 100644 --- a/src/backend/utils/cache/catcache.c +++ b/src/backend/utils/cache/catcache.c @@ -77,6 +77,11 @@ */ int cache_memory_target = 0; + +/* PoC entry limit */ +int cache_entry_limit = 0; +double cache_entry_limit_prune_ratio = 0.8; + /* GUC variable to define the minimum age of entries that will be cosidered to * be evicted in seconds. This variable is shared among various cache * mechanisms. @@ -882,6 +887,95 @@ InitCatCache(int id, return cp; } +/* + * CatCacheCleanupOldEntriesByNum - + * Poc remove infrequently-used entries by number of entries. + */ +static bool +CatCacheCleanupOldEntriesByNum(CatCache *cp, int cache_entry_limit) +{ + int i; + int n; + int oldndelelem = cp->cc_ntup; + int ndelelem; + CatCTup **ct_array; + + ndelelem = oldndelelem - (int)(cache_entry_limit * cache_entry_limit_prune_ratio); + + /* lower limit: quite arbitrary */ + if (ndelelem < 256) + ndelelem = 256; + + /* + * partial sort array: [0] contains latest access entry + * [1] contains ealiest access entry + */ + ct_array = (CatCTup **) palloc(ndelelem * sizeof(CatCTup*)); + n = 0; + + /* + * Collect entries to be removed, which have older lastaccess. + * Using heap bound sort like tuplesort.c. + */ + for (i = 0; i < cp->cc_nbuckets; i++) + { + dlist_mutable_iter iter; + + dlist_foreach_modify(iter, &cp->cc_bucket[i]) + { + CatCTup *ct = dlist_container(CatCTup, cache_elem, iter.cur); + + if (n < ndelelem) + { + int j = n++; + + while (j > 0) + { + int i = (j - 1) >> 1; + + if (ct->lastaccess >= ct_array[i]->lastaccess) + break; + ct_array[j] = ct_array[i]; + j = i; + } + ct_array[j] = ct; + } + else if (ct->lastaccess > ct_array[0]->lastaccess) + { + unsigned int i; + + i = 0; + + for (;;) + { + unsigned int j = 2 * i + 1; + + if (j >= n) + break; + if (j + 1 < n && + ct_array[j]->lastaccess > ct_array[j + 1]->lastaccess) + j++; + if (ct->lastaccess <= ct_array[j]->lastaccess) + break; + ct_array[i] = ct_array[j]; + i = j; + } + ct_array[i] = ct; + } + } + } + + /* Now we have the list of elements to be deleted */ + for (i = 0 ; i < ndelelem ; i++) + CatCacheRemoveCTup(cp, ct_array[i]); + + pfree(ct_array); + + elog(LOG, "Catcache pruned by entry number: id=%d, %d => %d", cp->id, oldndelelem, cp->cc_ntup); + + return true; +} + /* * CatCacheCleanupOldEntries - Remove infrequently-used entries * @@ -923,7 +1017,7 @@ CatCacheCleanupOldEntries(CatCache *cp) hash_size = cp->cc_nbuckets * sizeof(dlist_head); if (hash_size + cp->cc_tupsize < (Size) cache_memory_target * 1024L) return false; - + /* * Search the whole hash for entries to remove. This is a quite time * consuming task during catcache lookup, but accetable since now we are @@ -2049,6 +2143,10 @@ CatalogCacheCreateEntry(CatCache *cache, HeapTuple ntp, Datum *arguments, CacheHdr->ch_ntup++; cache->cc_tupsize += tupsize; + /* cap number of entries */ + if (cache_entry_limit > 0 && cache->cc_ntup > cache_entry_limit) + CatCacheCleanupOldEntriesByNum(cache, cache_entry_limit); + /* * If the hash table has become too full, try cleanup by removing * infrequently used entries to make a room for the new entry. If it diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c index 32e41253a6..7bb239a07e 100644 --- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c +++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c @@ -2227,6 +2227,36 @@ static struct config_int ConfigureNamesInt[] = NULL, NULL, NULL }, + { + {"cache_entry_limit", PGC_USERSET, RESOURCES_MEM, + gettext_noop("Sets the maximum entries of catcache."), + NULL + }, + &cache_entry_limit, + 0, 0, INT_MAX, + NULL, NULL, NULL + }, + + { + {"cache_entry_limit", PGC_USERSET, RESOURCES_MEM, + gettext_noop("Sets the maximum entries of catcache."), + NULL + }, + &cache_entry_limit, + 0, 0, INT_MAX, + NULL, NULL, NULL + }, + + { + {"cache_entry_limit", PGC_USERSET, RESOURCES_MEM, + gettext_noop("Sets the maximum entries of catcache."), + NULL + }, + &cache_entry_limit, + 0, 0, INT_MAX, + NULL, NULL, NULL + }, + /* * We use the hopefully-safely-small value of 100kB as the compiled-in * default for max_stack_depth. InitializeGUCOptions will increase it if @@ -3401,6 +3431,16 @@ static struct config_real ConfigureNamesReal[] = NULL, NULL, NULL }, + { + {"cache_entry_limit_prune_ratio", PGC_USERSET, RESOURCES_MEM, + gettext_noop("Sets the maximum entries of catcache."), + NULL + }, + &cache_entry_limit_prune_ratio, + 0.8, 0.0, 1.0, + NULL, NULL, NULL + }, + /* End-of-list marker */ { {NULL, 0, 0, NULL, NULL}, NULL, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, NULL, NULL, NULL diff --git a/src/include/utils/catcache.h b/src/include/utils/catcache.h index 4d51975920..1f7fb51ac0 100644 --- a/src/include/utils/catcache.h +++ b/src/include/utils/catcache.h @@ -193,6 +193,8 @@ extern PGDLLIMPORT MemoryContext CacheMemoryContext; /* for guc.c, not PGDLLPMPORT'ed */ extern int cache_prune_min_age; extern int cache_memory_target; +extern int cache_entry_limit; +extern double cache_entry_limit_prune_ratio; /* to use as access timestamp of catcache entries */ extern TimestampTz catcacheclock; -- 2.16.3 ----Next_Part(Wed_Feb_06_14_43_34_2019_896)---- ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v4 01/12] Change section heading to better reflect saving a result in variable(s) @ 2023-09-24 20:49 Karl O. Pinc <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Karl O. Pinc @ 2023-09-24 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw) The current section title of "Executing a Command with a Single-Row Result" does not reflect what the section is really about. Other sections make clear how to _execute_ commands, single-row result or not. What this section is about is how to _save_ a single row of results into variable(s). It would be nice to talk about saving results into variables in the section heading but I couldn't come up with anything pithy. "Saving a Single-Row of a Command's Result" seems good enough, especially since there's few other places to save results other than in variables. --- doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml index f55e901c7e..8747e84245 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml @@ -1126,7 +1126,7 @@ PERFORM create_mv('cs_session_page_requests_mv', my_query); </sect2> <sect2 id="plpgsql-statements-sql-onerow"> - <title>Executing a Command with a Single-Row Result</title> + <title>Saving a Single-Row of a Command's Result</title> <indexterm zone="plpgsql-statements-sql-onerow"> <primary>SELECT INTO</primary> -- 2.30.2 --MP_/OOXZvOwbpccKfGOtE9/SwX6 Content-Type: text/x-patch Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=v4-0002-Change-section-heading-to-better-describe-referen.patch ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 119+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 119+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-04-03 15:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 119+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-02-06 05:36 [PATCH 3/4] PoC add prune-by-number-of-entries feature Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]> 2023-09-24 20:49 [PATCH v4 01/12] Change section heading to better reflect saving a result in variable(s) Karl O. Pinc <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox