agora inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

[PATCH v19 2/8] Row pattern recognition patch (parse/analysis).
151+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]

* [PATCH v19 2/8] Row pattern recognition patch (parse/analysis).
@ 2024-05-14 23:26  Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Tatsuo Ishii @ 2024-05-14 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)

---
 src/backend/parser/parse_agg.c    |   7 +
 src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c | 296 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c   |   6 +
 src/backend/parser/parse_func.c   |   3 +
 4 files changed, 311 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/parser/parse_agg.c b/src/backend/parser/parse_agg.c
index bee7d8346a..9bc22a836a 100644
--- a/src/backend/parser/parse_agg.c
+++ b/src/backend/parser/parse_agg.c
@@ -577,6 +577,10 @@ check_agglevels_and_constraints(ParseState *pstate, Node *expr)
 			errkind = true;
 			break;
 
+		case EXPR_KIND_RPR_DEFINE:
+			errkind = true;
+			break;
+
 			/*
 			 * There is intentionally no default: case here, so that the
 			 * compiler will warn if we add a new ParseExprKind without
@@ -967,6 +971,9 @@ transformWindowFuncCall(ParseState *pstate, WindowFunc *wfunc,
 		case EXPR_KIND_CYCLE_MARK:
 			errkind = true;
 			break;
+		case EXPR_KIND_RPR_DEFINE:
+			errkind = true;
+			break;
 
 			/*
 			 * There is intentionally no default: case here, so that the
diff --git a/src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c b/src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c
index 8118036495..9762dce81f 100644
--- a/src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c
+++ b/src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c
@@ -98,7 +98,14 @@ static WindowClause *findWindowClause(List *wclist, const char *name);
 static Node *transformFrameOffset(ParseState *pstate, int frameOptions,
 								  Oid rangeopfamily, Oid rangeopcintype, Oid *inRangeFunc,
 								  Node *clause);
-
+static void transformRPR(ParseState *pstate, WindowClause *wc, WindowDef *windef,
+						 List **targetlist);
+static List *transformDefineClause(ParseState *pstate, WindowClause *wc, WindowDef *windef,
+								   List **targetlist);
+static void transformPatternClause(ParseState *pstate, WindowClause *wc,
+								   WindowDef *windef);
+static List *transformMeasureClause(ParseState *pstate, WindowClause *wc,
+									WindowDef *windef);
 
 /*
  * transformFromClause -
@@ -2956,6 +2963,10 @@ transformWindowDefinitions(ParseState *pstate,
 											 rangeopfamily, rangeopcintype,
 											 &wc->endInRangeFunc,
 											 windef->endOffset);
+
+		/* Process Row Pattern Recognition related clauses */
+		transformRPR(pstate, wc, windef, targetlist);
+
 		wc->winref = winref;
 
 		result = lappend(result, wc);
@@ -3820,3 +3831,286 @@ transformFrameOffset(ParseState *pstate, int frameOptions,
 
 	return node;
 }
+
+/*
+ * transformRPR
+ *		Process Row Pattern Recognition related clauses
+ */
+static void
+transformRPR(ParseState *pstate, WindowClause *wc, WindowDef *windef,
+			 List **targetlist)
+{
+	/*
+	 * Window definition exists?
+	 */
+	if (windef == NULL)
+		return;
+
+	/*
+	 * Row Pattern Common Syntax clause exists?
+	 */
+	if (windef->rpCommonSyntax == NULL)
+		return;
+
+	/* Check Frame option. Frame must start at current row */
+	if ((wc->frameOptions & FRAMEOPTION_START_CURRENT_ROW) == 0)
+		ereport(ERROR,
+				(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
+				 errmsg("FRAME must start at current row when row patttern recognition is used")));
+
+	/* Transform AFTER MACH SKIP TO clause */
+	wc->rpSkipTo = windef->rpCommonSyntax->rpSkipTo;
+
+	/* Transform AFTER MACH SKIP TO variable */
+	wc->rpSkipVariable = windef->rpCommonSyntax->rpSkipVariable;
+
+	/* Transform SEEK or INITIAL clause */
+	wc->initial = windef->rpCommonSyntax->initial;
+
+	/* Transform DEFINE clause into list of TargetEntry's */
+	wc->defineClause = transformDefineClause(pstate, wc, windef, targetlist);
+
+	/* Check PATTERN clause and copy to patternClause */
+	transformPatternClause(pstate, wc, windef);
+
+	/* Transform MEASURE clause */
+	transformMeasureClause(pstate, wc, windef);
+}
+
+/*
+ * transformDefineClause Process DEFINE clause and transform ResTarget into
+ *		list of TargetEntry.
+ *
+ * XXX we only support column reference in row pattern definition search
+ * condition, e.g. "price". <row pattern definition variable name>.<column
+ * reference> is not supported, e.g. "A.price".
+ */
+static List *
+transformDefineClause(ParseState *pstate, WindowClause *wc, WindowDef *windef,
+					  List **targetlist)
+{
+	/* DEFINE variable name initials */
+	static char *defineVariableInitials = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
+
+	ListCell   *lc,
+			   *l;
+	ResTarget  *restarget,
+			   *r;
+	List	   *restargets;
+	List	   *defineClause;
+	char	   *name;
+	int			initialLen;
+	int			i;
+
+	/*
+	 * If Row Definition Common Syntax exists, DEFINE clause must exist. (the
+	 * raw parser should have already checked it.)
+	 */
+	Assert(windef->rpCommonSyntax->rpDefs != NULL);
+
+	/*
+	 * Check and add "A AS A IS TRUE" if pattern variable is missing in DEFINE
+	 * per the SQL standard.
+	 */
+	restargets = NIL;
+	foreach(lc, windef->rpCommonSyntax->rpPatterns)
+	{
+		A_Expr	   *a;
+		bool		found = false;
+
+		if (!IsA(lfirst(lc), A_Expr))
+			ereport(ERROR,
+					errmsg("node type is not A_Expr"));
+
+		a = (A_Expr *) lfirst(lc);
+		name = strVal(a->lexpr);
+
+		foreach(l, windef->rpCommonSyntax->rpDefs)
+		{
+			restarget = (ResTarget *) lfirst(l);
+
+			if (!strcmp(restarget->name, name))
+			{
+				found = true;
+				break;
+			}
+		}
+
+		if (!found)
+		{
+			/*
+			 * "name" is missing. So create "name AS name IS TRUE" ResTarget
+			 * node and add it to the temporary list.
+			 */
+			A_Const    *n;
+
+			restarget = makeNode(ResTarget);
+			n = makeNode(A_Const);
+			n->val.boolval.type = T_Boolean;
+			n->val.boolval.boolval = true;
+			n->location = -1;
+			restarget->name = pstrdup(name);
+			restarget->indirection = NIL;
+			restarget->val = (Node *) n;
+			restarget->location = -1;
+			restargets = lappend((List *) restargets, restarget);
+		}
+	}
+
+	if (list_length(restargets) >= 1)
+	{
+		/* add missing DEFINEs */
+		windef->rpCommonSyntax->rpDefs =
+			list_concat(windef->rpCommonSyntax->rpDefs, restargets);
+		list_free(restargets);
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * Check for duplicate row pattern definition variables.  The standard
+	 * requires that no two row pattern definition variable names shall be
+	 * equivalent.
+	 */
+	restargets = NIL;
+	foreach(lc, windef->rpCommonSyntax->rpDefs)
+	{
+		restarget = (ResTarget *) lfirst(lc);
+		name = restarget->name;
+
+		/*
+		 * Add DEFINE expression (Restarget->val) to the targetlist as a
+		 * TargetEntry if it does not exist yet. Planner will add the column
+		 * ref var node to the outer plan's target list later on. This makes
+		 * DEFINE expression could access the outer tuple while evaluating
+		 * PATTERN.
+		 *
+		 * XXX: adding whole expressions of DEFINE to the plan.targetlist is
+		 * not so good, because it's not necessary to evalute the expression
+		 * in the target list while running the plan. We should extract the
+		 * var nodes only then add them to the plan.targetlist.
+		 */
+		findTargetlistEntrySQL99(pstate, (Node *) restarget->val,
+								 targetlist, EXPR_KIND_RPR_DEFINE);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure that the row pattern definition search condition is a
+		 * boolean expression.
+		 */
+		transformWhereClause(pstate, restarget->val,
+							 EXPR_KIND_RPR_DEFINE, "DEFINE");
+
+		foreach(l, restargets)
+		{
+			char	   *n;
+
+			r = (ResTarget *) lfirst(l);
+			n = r->name;
+
+			if (!strcmp(n, name))
+				ereport(ERROR,
+						(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
+						 errmsg("row pattern definition variable name \"%s\" appears more than once in DEFINE clause",
+								name),
+						 parser_errposition(pstate, exprLocation((Node *) r))));
+		}
+		restargets = lappend(restargets, restarget);
+	}
+	list_free(restargets);
+
+	/*
+	 * Create list of row pattern DEFINE variable name's initial. We assign
+	 * [a-z] to them (up to 26 variable names are allowed).
+	 */
+	restargets = NIL;
+	i = 0;
+	initialLen = strlen(defineVariableInitials);
+
+	foreach(lc, windef->rpCommonSyntax->rpDefs)
+	{
+		char		initial[2];
+
+		restarget = (ResTarget *) lfirst(lc);
+		name = restarget->name;
+
+		if (i >= initialLen)
+		{
+			ereport(ERROR,
+					(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
+					 errmsg("number of row pattern definition variable names exceeds %d",
+							initialLen),
+					 parser_errposition(pstate,
+										exprLocation((Node *) restarget))));
+		}
+		initial[0] = defineVariableInitials[i++];
+		initial[1] = '\0';
+		wc->defineInitial = lappend(wc->defineInitial,
+									makeString(pstrdup(initial)));
+	}
+
+	defineClause = transformTargetList(pstate, windef->rpCommonSyntax->rpDefs,
+									   EXPR_KIND_RPR_DEFINE);
+
+	/* mark column origins */
+	markTargetListOrigins(pstate, defineClause);
+
+	/* mark all nodes in the DEFINE clause tree with collation information */
+	assign_expr_collations(pstate, (Node *) defineClause);
+
+	return defineClause;
+}
+
+/*
+ * transformPatternClause
+ *		Process PATTERN clause and return PATTERN clause in the raw parse tree
+ */
+static void
+transformPatternClause(ParseState *pstate, WindowClause *wc,
+					   WindowDef *windef)
+{
+	ListCell   *lc;
+
+	/*
+	 * Row Pattern Common Syntax clause exists?
+	 */
+	if (windef->rpCommonSyntax == NULL)
+		return;
+
+	wc->patternVariable = NIL;
+	wc->patternRegexp = NIL;
+	foreach(lc, windef->rpCommonSyntax->rpPatterns)
+	{
+		A_Expr	   *a;
+		char	   *name;
+		char	   *regexp;
+
+		if (!IsA(lfirst(lc), A_Expr))
+			ereport(ERROR,
+					errmsg("node type is not A_Expr"));
+
+		a = (A_Expr *) lfirst(lc);
+		name = strVal(a->lexpr);
+
+		wc->patternVariable = lappend(wc->patternVariable, makeString(pstrdup(name)));
+		regexp = strVal(lfirst(list_head(a->name)));
+
+		wc->patternRegexp = lappend(wc->patternRegexp, makeString(pstrdup(regexp)));
+	}
+}
+
+/*
+ * transformMeasureClause
+ *		Process MEASURE clause
+ *	XXX MEASURE clause is not supported yet
+ */
+static List *
+transformMeasureClause(ParseState *pstate, WindowClause *wc,
+					   WindowDef *windef)
+{
+	if (windef->rowPatternMeasures == NIL)
+		return NIL;
+
+	ereport(ERROR,
+			(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
+			 errmsg("%s", "MEASURE clause is not supported yet"),
+			 parser_errposition(pstate, exprLocation((Node *) windef->rowPatternMeasures))));
+	return NIL;
+}
diff --git a/src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c b/src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c
index aba3546ed1..e98b45e06e 100644
--- a/src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c
+++ b/src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c
@@ -578,6 +578,7 @@ transformColumnRef(ParseState *pstate, ColumnRef *cref)
 		case EXPR_KIND_COPY_WHERE:
 		case EXPR_KIND_GENERATED_COLUMN:
 		case EXPR_KIND_CYCLE_MARK:
+		case EXPR_KIND_RPR_DEFINE:
 			/* okay */
 			break;
 
@@ -1860,6 +1861,9 @@ transformSubLink(ParseState *pstate, SubLink *sublink)
 		case EXPR_KIND_GENERATED_COLUMN:
 			err = _("cannot use subquery in column generation expression");
 			break;
+		case EXPR_KIND_RPR_DEFINE:
+			err = _("cannot use subquery in DEFINE expression");
+			break;
 
 			/*
 			 * There is intentionally no default: case here, so that the
@@ -3197,6 +3201,8 @@ ParseExprKindName(ParseExprKind exprKind)
 			return "GENERATED AS";
 		case EXPR_KIND_CYCLE_MARK:
 			return "CYCLE";
+		case EXPR_KIND_RPR_DEFINE:
+			return "DEFINE";
 
 			/*
 			 * There is intentionally no default: case here, so that the
diff --git a/src/backend/parser/parse_func.c b/src/backend/parser/parse_func.c
index 9b23344a3b..4c482abb30 100644
--- a/src/backend/parser/parse_func.c
+++ b/src/backend/parser/parse_func.c
@@ -2658,6 +2658,9 @@ check_srf_call_placement(ParseState *pstate, Node *last_srf, int location)
 		case EXPR_KIND_CYCLE_MARK:
 			errkind = true;
 			break;
+		case EXPR_KIND_RPR_DEFINE:
+			errkind = true;
+			break;
 
 			/*
 			 * There is intentionally no default: case here, so that the
-- 
2.25.1


----Next_Part(Wed_May_15_09_02_03_2024_008)--
Content-Type: Text/X-Patch; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="v19-0003-Row-pattern-recognition-patch-rewriter.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

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

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

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 151+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 151+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2026-04-03 15:23 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 151+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-05-14 23:26 [PATCH v19 2/8] Row pattern recognition patch (parse/analysis). Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>