agora inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

[PATCH v6 3/3] Replace matview WITH OLD DATA
532+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]

* [PATCH v6 3/3] Replace matview WITH OLD DATA
@ 2024-07-26 21:33 Erik Wienhold <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Erik Wienhold @ 2024-07-26 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)

---
 .../sgml/ref/create_materialized_view.sgml    | 16 +++++++++--
 src/backend/commands/createas.c               | 26 +++++++++++------
 src/backend/parser/gram.y                     | 16 +++++++++++
 src/include/nodes/primnodes.h                 |  1 +
 src/test/regress/expected/matview.out         | 28 +++++++++++++++++++
 src/test/regress/sql/matview.sql              | 15 ++++++++++
 6 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_materialized_view.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_materialized_view.sgml
index 5e03320eb73..1352e9de409 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_materialized_view.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_materialized_view.sgml
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ CREATE [ OR REPLACE ] MATERIALIZED VIEW [ IF NOT EXISTS ] <replaceable>table_nam
     [ WITH ( <replaceable class="parameter">storage_parameter</replaceable> [= <replaceable class="parameter">value</replaceable>] [, ... ] ) ]
     [ TABLESPACE <replaceable class="parameter">tablespace_name</replaceable> ]
     AS <replaceable>query</replaceable>
-    [ WITH [ NO ] DATA ]
+    [ WITH [ NO | OLD ] DATA ]
 </synopsis>
  </refsynopsisdiv>
 
@@ -37,7 +37,8 @@ CREATE [ OR REPLACE ] MATERIALIZED VIEW [ IF NOT EXISTS ] <replaceable>table_nam
   <para>
    <command>CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW</command> defines a materialized view of
    a query.  The query is executed and used to populate the view at the time
-   the command is issued (unless <command>WITH NO DATA</command> is used) and may be
+   the command is issued (unless <command>WITH NO DATA</command> or
+   <command>WITH OLD DATA</command> is used) and may be
    refreshed later using <command>REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW</command>.
   </para>
 
@@ -162,7 +163,7 @@ CREATE [ OR REPLACE ] MATERIALIZED VIEW [ IF NOT EXISTS ] <replaceable>table_nam
    </varlistentry>
 
    <varlistentry>
-    <term><literal>WITH [ NO ] DATA</literal></term>
+    <term><literal>WITH [ NO | OLD ] DATA</literal></term>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       This clause specifies whether or not the materialized view should be
@@ -170,6 +171,15 @@ CREATE [ OR REPLACE ] MATERIALIZED VIEW [ IF NOT EXISTS ] <replaceable>table_nam
       flagged as unscannable and cannot be queried until <command>REFRESH
       MATERIALIZED VIEW</command> is used.
      </para>
+
+     <para>
+      The form <command>WITH OLD DATA</command> keeps the already stored data
+      when replacing an existing materialized view to keep it populated.  For
+      newly created materialized views, this has the same effect as
+      <command>WITH DATA</command>.  Use this form if you want to use
+      <command>REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY</command> as it requires
+      a populated materialized view.
+     </para>
     </listitem>
    </varlistentry>
 
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/createas.c b/src/backend/commands/createas.c
index 9f37ed7f177..0ed44b246bd 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/createas.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/createas.c
@@ -332,18 +332,26 @@ ExecCreateTableAs(ParseState *pstate, CreateTableAsStmt *stmt,
 		/* An existing materialized view can be replaced. */
 		if (is_matview && into->replace)
 		{
-			RefreshMatViewStmt *refresh;
-
 			/* Change the relation to match the new query and other options. */
-			(void) create_ctas_nodata(query->targetList, into);
+			address = create_ctas_nodata(query->targetList, into);
 
-			/* Refresh the materialized view with a fake statement. */
-			refresh = makeNode(RefreshMatViewStmt);
-			refresh->relation = into->rel;
-			refresh->skipData = into->skipData;
-			refresh->concurrent = false;
+			/*
+			 * Refresh the materialized view with a fake statement unless we
+			 * must keep the old data.
+			 */
+			if (!into->keepData)
+			{
+				RefreshMatViewStmt *refresh;
+
+				refresh = makeNode(RefreshMatViewStmt);
+				refresh->relation = into->rel;
+				refresh->skipData = into->skipData;
+				refresh->concurrent = false;
+
+				address = ExecRefreshMatView(refresh, pstate->p_sourcetext, qc);
+			}
 
-			return ExecRefreshMatView(refresh, pstate->p_sourcetext, qc);
+			return address;
 		}
 
 		return InvalidObjectAddress;
diff --git a/src/backend/parser/gram.y b/src/backend/parser/gram.y
index 8be790eaccf..e405268f413 100644
--- a/src/backend/parser/gram.y
+++ b/src/backend/parser/gram.y
@@ -4924,6 +4924,22 @@ CreateMatViewStmt:
 					$7->replace = true;
 					$$ = (Node *) ctas;
 				}
+		| CREATE OR REPLACE OptNoLog MATERIALIZED VIEW create_mv_target AS SelectStmt WITH OLD DATA_P
+				{
+					CreateTableAsStmt *ctas = makeNode(CreateTableAsStmt);
+
+					ctas->query = $9;
+					ctas->into = $7;
+					ctas->objtype = OBJECT_MATVIEW;
+					ctas->is_select_into = false;
+					ctas->if_not_exists = false;
+					/* cram additional flags into the IntoClause */
+					$7->rel->relpersistence = $4;
+					$7->skipData = false;
+					$7->keepData = true;
+					$7->replace = true;
+					$$ = (Node *) ctas;
+				}
 		;
 
 create_mv_target:
diff --git a/src/include/nodes/primnodes.h b/src/include/nodes/primnodes.h
index e800d13a6e0..5290e6c0e8a 100644
--- a/src/include/nodes/primnodes.h
+++ b/src/include/nodes/primnodes.h
@@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ typedef struct IntoClause
 	/* materialized view's SELECT query */
 	struct Query *viewQuery pg_node_attr(query_jumble_ignore);
 	bool		skipData;		/* true for WITH NO DATA */
+	bool		keepData;		/* true for WITH OLD DATA */
 	bool		replace;		/* replace existing matview? */
 } IntoClause;
 
diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/matview.out b/src/test/regress/expected/matview.out
index d4b42da1ddf..f0f52dd1c6c 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/matview.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/matview.out
@@ -751,6 +751,23 @@ SELECT * FROM mvtest_replace;
  3
 (1 row)
 
+-- replace query but keep old data
+CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvtest_replace AS
+  SELECT 5 AS a
+  WITH OLD DATA;
+SELECT * FROM mvtest_replace;
+ a 
+---
+ 3
+(1 row)
+
+REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW mvtest_replace;
+SELECT * FROM mvtest_replace;
+ a 
+---
+ 5
+(1 row)
+
 -- add column
 CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvtest_replace AS
   SELECT 4 AS a, 1 b;
@@ -905,3 +922,14 @@ ERROR:  syntax error at or near "NOT"
 LINE 1: CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW IF NOT EXISTS mvtest_rep...
                                                ^
 DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW mvtest_replace;
+-- Create new matview WITH OLD DATA.  This populates the new matview as if
+-- WITH DATA had been specified.
+CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvtest_replace AS
+  SELECT 17 AS a
+  WITH OLD DATA;
+SELECT * FROM mvtest_replace;
+ a  
+----
+ 17
+(1 row)
+
diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/matview.sql b/src/test/regress/sql/matview.sql
index d6a4dc4b857..91f547e9cb8 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/sql/matview.sql
+++ b/src/test/regress/sql/matview.sql
@@ -338,6 +338,14 @@ SELECT * FROM mvtest_replace; -- error: not populated
 REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW mvtest_replace;
 SELECT * FROM mvtest_replace;
 
+-- replace query but keep old data
+CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvtest_replace AS
+  SELECT 5 AS a
+  WITH OLD DATA;
+SELECT * FROM mvtest_replace;
+REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW mvtest_replace;
+SELECT * FROM mvtest_replace;
+
 -- add column
 CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvtest_replace AS
   SELECT 4 AS a, 1 b;
@@ -422,3 +430,10 @@ CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW IF NOT EXISTS mvtest_replace AS
   SELECT 1 AS a;
 
 DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW mvtest_replace;
+
+-- Create new matview WITH OLD DATA.  This populates the new matview as if
+-- WITH DATA had been specified.
+CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvtest_replace AS
+  SELECT 17 AS a
+  WITH OLD DATA;
+SELECT * FROM mvtest_replace;
-- 
2.48.1


--aewcrbystcgftlni--





^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

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

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

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 532+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 532+ messages in thread