agora inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
[PATCH 3/6] optimize allocations 2877+ messages / 2 participants [nested] [flat]
* [PATCH 3/6] optimize allocations @ 2020-09-13 10:12 Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Tomas Vondra @ 2020-09-13 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw) --- src/backend/access/brin/brin.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c b/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c index f438e59c75..756dc0fd1f 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c +++ b/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c @@ -373,6 +373,8 @@ bringetbitmap(IndexScanDesc scan, TIDBitmap *tbm) int *nkeys, *nnullkeys; int keyno; + char *ptr; + Size len; opaque = (BrinOpaque *) scan->opaque; bdesc = opaque->bo_bdesc; @@ -398,11 +400,47 @@ bringetbitmap(IndexScanDesc scan, TIDBitmap *tbm) * Make room for per-attribute lists of scan keys that we'll pass to the * consistent support procedure. We keep null and regular keys separate, * so that we can easily pass regular keys to the consistent function. + * + * To reduce the allocation overhead, we allocate one big chunk and then + * carve it into smaller arrays ourselves. All the pieces have exactly + * the same lifetime, so that's OK. */ - keys = palloc0(sizeof(ScanKey *) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts); - nullkeys = palloc0(sizeof(ScanKey *) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts); - nkeys = palloc0(sizeof(int) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts); - nnullkeys = palloc0(sizeof(int) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts); + len = + /* regular keys */ + MAXALIGN(sizeof(ScanKey *) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts) + + MAXALIGN(sizeof(ScanKey) * scan->numberOfKeys) + + MAXALIGN(sizeof(int) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts) + + /* NULL keys */ + MAXALIGN(sizeof(ScanKey *) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts) + + MAXALIGN(sizeof(ScanKey) * scan->numberOfKeys) + + MAXALIGN(sizeof(int) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts); + + ptr = palloc(len); + + keys = (ScanKey **) ptr; + ptr += MAXALIGN(sizeof(ScanKey *) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts); + + nullkeys = (ScanKey **) ptr; + ptr += MAXALIGN(sizeof(ScanKey *) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts); + + nkeys = (int *) ptr; + ptr += MAXALIGN(sizeof(int) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts); + + nnullkeys = (int *) ptr; + ptr += MAXALIGN(sizeof(int) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts); + + for (int i = 0; i < bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts; i++) + { + keys[i] = (ScanKey *) ptr; + ptr += MAXALIGN(sizeof(ScanKey) * scan->numberOfKeys); + + nullkeys[i] = (ScanKey *) ptr; + ptr += MAXALIGN(sizeof(ScanKey) * scan->numberOfKeys); + } + + /* zero the number of keys */ + memset(nkeys, 0, sizeof(int) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts); + memset(nnullkeys, 0, sizeof(int) * bdesc->bd_tupdesc->natts); /* * Preprocess the scan keys - split them into per-attribute arrays. @@ -451,17 +489,11 @@ bringetbitmap(IndexScanDesc scan, TIDBitmap *tbm) /* Add key to the proper per-attribute array. */ if (key->sk_flags & SK_ISNULL) { - if (!nullkeys[keyattno - 1]) - nullkeys[keyattno - 1] = palloc0(sizeof(ScanKey) * scan->numberOfKeys); - nullkeys[keyattno - 1][nnullkeys[keyattno - 1]] = key; nnullkeys[keyattno - 1]++; } else { - if (!keys[keyattno - 1]) - keys[keyattno - 1] = palloc0(sizeof(ScanKey) * scan->numberOfKeys); - keys[keyattno - 1][nkeys[keyattno - 1]] = key; nkeys[keyattno - 1]++; } -- 2.25.4 --oygwhy5yjes6547y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="0004-BRIN-bloom-indexes-20200917.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2877+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2877+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-04-03 15:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2877+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-09-13 10:12 [PATCH 3/6] optimize allocations Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox