Thread
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Disallow direct use of the pgrepack logical decoding plugin
- cd7b204b2df9 19 (unreleased) landed
-
BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> — 2026-05-28T14:54:26Z
The following bug has been logged on the website: Bug reference: 19500 Logged by: Nikita Kalinin Email address: n.kalinin@postgrespro.ru PostgreSQL version: 18.4 Operating system: Fedora 44 Description: Hi, It appears that the pgrepack output plugin is accessible through the SQL logical decoding API, even though the plugin code explicitly indicates that this interface is not supported. Reading changes from such a slot can cause a backend process crash in builds with asserts enabled. The crash is reproducible on the current master branch. Since the web form does not allow selecting master, I selected the latest available released version instead. Steps to reproduce: CREATE TABLE rp(a int); SELECT * FROM pg_create_logical_replication_slot('s_repack', 'pgrepack'); INSERT INTO rp VALUES (1); SELECT * FROM pg_logical_slot_get_binary_changes('s_repack', NULL, NULL); Server log: 2026-05-28 21:32:23.185 +07 [142878] STATEMENT: SELECT * FROM pg_create_logical_replication_slot('s_repack', 'pgrepack'); TRAP: failed Assert("RelationGetRelid(relation) == private->relid"), File: "pgrepack.c", Line: 100, PID: 142878 postgres: nkpit postgres [local] SELECT(ExceptionalCondition+0x57) [0xa2d437] /tmp/pg/lib/postgresql/pgrepack.so(+0xa99) [0x7f7dd9332a99] Backtrace: #0 __pthread_kill_implementation (threadid=<optimized out>, signo=signo@entry=6, no_tid=no_tid@entry=0) at pthread_kill.c:44 #1 0x00007f7dd807a8d3 in __pthread_kill_internal (threadid=<optimized out>, signo=6) at pthread_kill.c:89 #2 0x00007f7dd801f48e in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26 #3 0x00007f7dd80067b3 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:77 #4 0x0000000000a2d458 in ExceptionalCondition ( conditionName=conditionName@entry=0x7f7dd93337c8 "RelationGetRelid(relation) == private->relid", fileName=fileName@entry=0x7f7dd93337f5 "pgrepack.c", lineNumber=lineNumber@entry=100) at assert.c:65 #5 0x00007f7dd9332a99 in repack_process_change (ctx=<optimized out>, txn=<optimized out>, relation=<optimized out>, change=<optimized out>) at pgrepack.c:100 #6 0x0000000000821223 in change_cb_wrapper (cache=<optimized out>, txn=<optimized out>, relation=<optimized out>, change=<optimized out>) at logical.c:1111 #7 0x000000000082d91b in ReorderBufferApplyChange (rb=<optimized out>, txn=<optimized out>, relation=0x7f7dd848f7e8, change=0x29f71f10, streaming=false) at reorderbuffer.c:2080 #8 ReorderBufferProcessTXN (rb=0x29f55f20, txn=0x29f49e30, commit_lsn=25673024, snapshot_now=<optimized out>, command_id=command_id@entry=0, streaming=streaming@entry=false) at reorderbuffer.c:2387 #9 0x000000000082dca9 in ReorderBufferReplay (txn=<optimized out>, rb=<optimized out>, commit_lsn=<optimized out>, end_lsn=<optimized out>, commit_time=<optimized out>, origin_id=<optimized out>, origin_lsn=0, xid=<optimized out>) at reorderbuffer.c:2872 #10 0x000000000082ea38 in ReorderBufferCommit (rb=<optimized out>, xid=<optimized out>, commit_lsn=<optimized out>, end_lsn=<optimized out>, commit_time=<optimized out>, origin_id=<optimized out>, origin_lsn=<optimized out>) at reorderbuffer.c:2896 #11 0x000000000081d075 in DecodeCommit (ctx=0x29f3de70, buf=0x7ffe263bd7e0, parsed=0x7ffe263bd630, xid=695, two_phase=false) at decode.c:755 #12 xact_decode (ctx=0x29f3de70, buf=0x7ffe263bd7e0) at decode.c:254 #13 0x000000000081cbaa in LogicalDecodingProcessRecord (ctx=ctx@entry=0x29f3de70, record=<optimized out>) at decode.c:117 #14 0x0000000000823b71 in pg_logical_slot_get_changes_guts (fcinfo=0x29f2d400, confirm=confirm@entry=true, binary=binary@entry=true) at logicalfuncs.c:267 #15 0x0000000000823d13 in pg_logical_slot_get_binary_changes (fcinfo=<optimized out>) at logicalfuncs.c:354 #16 0x00000000006b7cb5 in ExecMakeTableFunctionResult (setexpr=0x29f279c8, econtext=0x29f27818, argContext=<optimized out>, expectedDesc=0x29f2f348, randomAccess=false) at execSRF.c:235 #17 0x00000000006ccad7 in FunctionNext (node=0x29f27608) at nodeFunctionscan.c:95 #18 0x00000000006ac21a in ExecProcNode (node=0x29f27608) at ../../../src/include/executor/executor.h:327 #19 ExecutePlan (queryDesc=0x29e40780, operation=CMD_SELECT, sendTuples=true, numberTuples=0, direction=<optimized out>, dest=0x29f29618) at execMain.c:1736 #20 standard_ExecutorRun (queryDesc=0x29e40780, direction=<optimized out>, count=0) at execMain.c:377 #21 0x00000000008c5f98 in PortalRunSelect (portal=portal@entry=0x29eb7130, forward=forward@entry=true, count=0, count@entry=9223372036854775807, dest=dest@entry=0x29f29618) at pquery.c:917 #22 0x00000000008c767e in PortalRun (portal=portal@entry=0x29eb7130, count=count@entry=9223372036854775807, isTopLevel=isTopLevel@entry=true, dest=dest@entry=0x29f29618, altdest=altdest@entry=0x29f29618, qc=qc@entry=0x7ffe263bdd50) at pquery.c:761 #23 0x00000000008c3308 in exec_simple_query ( query_string=0x29e13800 "SELECT *\n FROM pg_logical_slot_get_binary_changes('s_repack', NULL, NULL);") at postgres.c:1290 #24 0x00000000008c4de1 in PostgresMain (dbname=<optimized out>, username=<optimized out>) at postgres.c:4856 #25 0x00000000008beddd in BackendMain (startup_data=<optimized out>, startup_data_len=<optimized out>) at backend_startup.c:124 #26 0x00000000007fed6e in postmaster_child_launch (child_type=<optimized out>, child_slot=1, startup_data=startup_data@entry=0x7ffe263be1a0, startup_data_len=startup_data_len@entry=24, client_sock=client_sock@entry=0x7ffe263be1c0) at launch_backend.c:268 #27 0x0000000000802776 in BackendStartup (client_sock=0x7ffe263be1c0) at postmaster.c:3627 #28 ServerLoop () at postmaster.c:1728 #29 0x0000000000804239 in PostmasterMain (argc=argc@entry=3, argv=argv@entry=0x29dbcfe0) at postmaster.c:1415 #30 0x00000000004a1b48 in main (argc=3, argv=0x29dbcfe0) at main.c:231 postgres=# select version(); version ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PostgreSQL 19devel on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 16.1.1 20260515 (Red Hat 16.1.1-2), 64-bit (1 row) Is this considered normal behavior for the pgrepack plugin, i.e. essentially a “don’t do that” situation? -
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> — 2026-05-29T14:23:35Z
Hi, On 2026-05-28, PG Bug reporting form wrote: > It appears that the pgrepack output plugin is accessible through the SQL > logical decoding API, even though the plugin code explicitly indicates that > this interface is not supported. Reading changes from such a slot can cause > a backend process crash in builds with asserts enabled. > Is this considered normal behavior for the pgrepack plugin, i.e. essentially > a “don’t do that” situation? Yeah, I would like to have a way to prevent this, if only for user-friendliness, but it's not terribly pressing since only a role with REPLICATION privs can create the replication slot, which as I recall are already pretty powerful. -- Álvaro Herrera
-
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> — 2026-06-01T17:12:53Z
On 2026-May-29, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2026-05-28, PG Bug reporting form wrote: > > > It appears that the pgrepack output plugin is accessible through the > > SQL logical decoding API, even though the plugin code explicitly > > indicates that this interface is not supported. Reading changes from > > such a slot can cause a backend process crash in builds with asserts > > enabled. > > Yeah, I would like to have a way to prevent this, if only for > user-friendliness, but it's not terribly pressing since only a role > with REPLICATION privs can create the replication slot, which as I > recall are already pretty powerful. How about something like this? It makes your test case throw an error instead of failing the assertion, which I suppose is an improvement. The patch is a bit noisy because I moved more code than the minimum necessary; but the gist of it is that we allocate RepackDecodingState in repack_startup(), then have repack_setup_logical_decoding() fill in a magic number, which we later check in repack_begin_txn(). This is a bit wasteful, because we have to do that check once for each and every transaction; however I see no other callback that would let us do this kind of check after the slot is created but before we start to consume from it. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Before you were born your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way paying your bills, cleaning up your room and listening to you tell them how idealistic you are." -- Charles J. Sykes' advice to teenagers
-
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Никита Калинин <n.kalinin@postgrespro.ru> — 2026-06-02T02:39:26Z
> On 2 Jun 2026, at 00:12, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote: > > How about something like this? It makes your test case throw an error > instead of failing the assertion, which I suppose is an improvement. > > The patch is a bit noisy because I moved more code than the minimum > necessary; but the gist of it is that we allocate RepackDecodingState in > repack_startup(), then have repack_setup_logical_decoding() fill in a > magic number, which we later check in repack_begin_txn(). This is a bit > wasteful, because we have to do that check once for each and every > transaction; however I see no other callback that would let us do this > kind of check after the slot is created but before we start to consume > from it. > > -- > Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ > "Before you were born your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They > got that way paying your bills, cleaning up your room and listening to you > tell them how idealistic you are." -- Charles J. Sykes' advice to teenagers > <0001-Have-RepackDecodingState-carry-a-magic-number.patch> Yes, I agree that returning an error to the user makes sense. But does the error message need to be that detailed? Perhaps something like "ERROR: wrong magic number in "pgrepack" decoder plugin" would be sufficient. Nevertheless, I tested the patch and can confirm that there are no assertion failures anymore. I also ran it under ASAN and did not observe any issues. Would it make sense to add a test for this case from the bug report?
-
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> — 2026-06-02T12:25:51Z
Hi Nikita, On 2026-Jun-02, Никита Калинин wrote: > > On 2 Jun 2026, at 00:12, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote: > But does the error message need to be that detailed? Perhaps something like > > "ERROR: wrong magic number in "pgrepack" decoder plugin" > would be sufficient. Maybe. Getting 0x00000000 would be quite different from 0x7f7f7f7f for instance, or a completely random number, so I don't want to judge ahead of time. > Nevertheless, I tested the patch and can confirm that there are no > assertion failures anymore. > > I also ran it under ASAN and did not observe any issues. Thanks for testing it. > Would it make sense to add a test for this case from the bug report? Sure, I would do that. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Saca el libro que tu religión considere como el indicado para encontrar la oración que traiga paz a tu alma. Luego rebootea el computador y ve si funciona" (Carlos Duclós)
-
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com> — 2026-06-03T05:51:17Z
Hi Álvaro, On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 10:43 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote: > On 2026-May-29, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > > > On 2026-05-28, PG Bug reporting form wrote: > > > > > It appears that the pgrepack output plugin is accessible through the > > > SQL logical decoding API, even though the plugin code explicitly > > > indicates that this interface is not supported. Reading changes from > > > such a slot can cause a backend process crash in builds with asserts > > > enabled. > > > > Yeah, I would like to have a way to prevent this, if only for > > user-friendliness, but it's not terribly pressing since only a role > > with REPLICATION privs can create the replication slot, which as I > > recall are already pretty powerful. > > How about something like this? It makes your test case throw an error > instead of failing the assertion, which I suppose is an improvement. > > The patch is a bit noisy because I moved more code than the minimum > necessary; but the gist of it is that we allocate RepackDecodingState in > repack_startup(), then have repack_setup_logical_decoding() fill in a > magic number, which we later check in repack_begin_txn(). This is a bit > wasteful, because we have to do that check once for each and every > transaction; however I see no other callback that would let us do this > kind of check after the slot is created but before we start to consume > from it. > The magic guard is correct. One thing worth noting: the check is in the begin callback, which fires only at the transaction's commit, so a single large transaction (a bulk load) is decoded in full and buffered, spilling to disk past logical_decoding_work_mem, before the plugin rejects it. That work is then thrown away. It's a misuse path, so this might not be a big concern, I guess, but it does mean the wasted work scales with the transaction size rather than being negligible. Could we reject the pgrepack plugin at slot creation instead, in pg_create_logical_replication_slot() and the CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT command, so misuse gets a clear "reserved for REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)" error up front, before any decoding? REPACK creates its slot directly via ReplicationSlotCreate(), so it's unaffected, and the begin-callback check with magic guard can stay as the internal safety net. Happy to be told this isn't worth special-casing :) I attached the patch which brings the above behaviour, this patch in on top of your patch. Thoughts? -- Thanks, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
-
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> — 2026-06-03T07:30:21Z
Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com> wrote: > Could we reject the pgrepack plugin at slot creation instead, in > pg_create_logical_replication_slot() and the CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT > command, so misuse gets a clear "reserved for REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)" > error up front, before any decoding? REPACK creates its slot directly via > ReplicationSlotCreate(), so it's unaffected, and the begin-callback check > with magic guard can stay as the internal safety net. > Happy to be told this isn't worth special-casing :) Another possible approach: restrict the use of the plugin to the REPACK decoding worker. -- Antonin Houska Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
-
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com> — 2026-06-03T10:25:18Z
On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 1:00 PM Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote: > Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Could we reject the pgrepack plugin at slot creation instead, in > > pg_create_logical_replication_slot() and the CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT > > command, so misuse gets a clear "reserved for REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)" > > error up front, before any decoding? REPACK creates its slot directly via > > ReplicationSlotCreate(), so it's unaffected, and the begin-callback check > > with magic guard can stay as the internal safety net. > > Happy to be told this isn't worth special-casing :) > > Another possible approach: restrict the use of the plugin to the REPACK > decoding worker. > cool ... that's cleaner, incorporated these changes and added test ,errcode. -- Thanks :) Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
-
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> — 2026-06-03T21:02:56Z
On 2026-Jun-03, Antonin Houska wrote: > Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Could we reject the pgrepack plugin at slot creation instead, in > > pg_create_logical_replication_slot() and the CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT > > command, so misuse gets a clear "reserved for REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)" > > error up front, before any decoding? REPACK creates its slot directly via > > ReplicationSlotCreate(), so it's unaffected, and the begin-callback check > > with magic guard can stay as the internal safety net. > > Happy to be told this isn't worth special-casing :) > > Another possible approach: restrict the use of the plugin to the REPACK > decoding worker. I don't like either of these approaches, because they are forcing the generic facility (either slot creation or logical decoding setup) to know something about one specific user of the facility. That is to say, the restriction is being added on the wrong side of the abstraction. I know my implementation the drawback you (Srinath) mentioned, because the abstraction doesn't provide us with a great way to inject an error report at the exact spot we need it; but I think it's at the correct side of the abstraction. (I'm not really sure that there _is_ a great way to throw an error report at the right time. That would require every single output plugin author to add a function we can call; and every single one of them, except REPACK, would do nothing. This seems quite pointless.) I frankly don't have a problem with letting a transaction spill a few GBs to disk only to then report an error that pgrepack is being misused. It's just not something that anyone would do for fun. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
-
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> — 2026-06-04T06:31:41Z
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote: > On 2026-Jun-03, Antonin Houska wrote: > > > Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Could we reject the pgrepack plugin at slot creation instead, in > > > pg_create_logical_replication_slot() and the CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT > > > command, so misuse gets a clear "reserved for REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)" > > > error up front, before any decoding? REPACK creates its slot directly via > > > ReplicationSlotCreate(), so it's unaffected, and the begin-callback check > > > with magic guard can stay as the internal safety net. > > > Happy to be told this isn't worth special-casing :) > > > > Another possible approach: restrict the use of the plugin to the REPACK > > decoding worker. > > I don't like either of these approaches, because they are forcing the > generic facility (either slot creation or logical decoding setup) to > know something about one specific user of the facility. That is to say, > the restriction is being added on the wrong side of the abstraction. > I know my implementation the drawback you (Srinath) mentioned, because > the abstraction doesn't provide us with a great way to inject an error > report at the exact spot we need it; but I think it's at the correct > side of the abstraction. I noticed that ReplicationSlotAcquire() already does something like that /* * Do not allow users to acquire the reserved slot. This scenario may * occur if the launcher that owns the slot has terminated unexpectedly * due to an error, and a backend process attempts to reuse the slot. */ if (!IsLogicalLauncher() && IsSlotForConflictCheck(name)) ereport(ERROR, errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT), errmsg("cannot acquire replication slot \"%s\"", name), errdetail("The slot is reserved for conflict detection and can only be acquired by logical replication launcher.")); but I agree that it's not perfect to hard-wire particular slot names into functions like this. Perhaps we could introduce a concept of "reserved slots" and an API (callback) to perform these checks, but that's not appropriate for beta release. > (I'm not really sure that there _is_ a great way to throw an error > report at the right time. That would require every single output plugin > author to add a function we can call; and every single one of them, > except REPACK, would do nothing. This seems quite pointless.) > > I frankly don't have a problem with letting a transaction spill a few > GBs to disk only to then report an error that pgrepack is being misused. > It's just not something that anyone would do for fun. I admit that the possibility of wasted processing of a transaction didn't really frighten me. The idea I posted just occurred to me somehow, but I don't consider it urgent. I'm fine with your approach. -- Antonin Houska Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com -
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com> — 2026-06-05T06:09:03Z
On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 2:50 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote: > On 2026-Jun-03, Antonin Houska wrote: > > > Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Could we reject the pgrepack plugin at slot creation instead, in > > > pg_create_logical_replication_slot() and the CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT > > > command, so misuse gets a clear "reserved for REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)" > > > error up front, before any decoding? REPACK creates its slot directly > via > > > ReplicationSlotCreate(), so it's unaffected, and the begin-callback > check > > > with magic guard can stay as the internal safety net. > > > Happy to be told this isn't worth special-casing :) > > > > Another possible approach: restrict the use of the plugin to the REPACK > > decoding worker. > > I don't like either of these approaches, because they are forcing the > generic facility (either slot creation or logical decoding setup) to > know something about one specific user of the facility. That is to say, > the restriction is being added on the wrong side of the abstraction. > I know my implementation the drawback you (Srinath) mentioned, because > the abstraction doesn't provide us with a great way to inject an error > report at the exact spot we need it; but I think it's at the correct > side of the abstraction. > (I'm not really sure that there _is_ a great way to throw an error > report at the right time. That would require every single output plugin > author to add a function we can call; and every single one of them, > except REPACK, would do nothing. This seems quite pointless.) > > I frankly don't have a problem with letting a transaction spill a few > GBs to disk only to then report an error that pgrepack is being misused. > It's just not something that anyone would do for fun. > makes sense, we can go with your approach, thanks for the clarification. -- Thanks :) Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
-
RE: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> — 2026-06-05T08:08:07Z
On Thursday, June 4, 2026 5:03 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote: > On 2026-Jun-03, Antonin Houska wrote: > > > Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Could we reject the pgrepack plugin at slot creation instead, in > > > pg_create_logical_replication_slot() and the CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT > > > command, so misuse gets a clear "reserved for REPACK > (CONCURRENTLY)" > > > error up front, before any decoding? REPACK creates its slot > > > directly via ReplicationSlotCreate(), so it's unaffected, and the > > > begin-callback check with magic guard can stay as the internal safety net. > > > Happy to be told this isn't worth special-casing :) > > > > Another possible approach: restrict the use of the plugin to the > > REPACK decoding worker. > > I don't like either of these approaches, because they are forcing the generic > facility (either slot creation or logical decoding setup) to know something > about one specific user of the facility. That is to say, the restriction is being > added on the wrong side of the abstraction. > I know my implementation the drawback you (Srinath) mentioned, because > the abstraction doesn't provide us with a great way to inject an error report at > the exact spot we need it; but I think it's at the correct side of the abstraction. I have no objection to the proposed approach. But I would like to confirm whether reporting an ERROR in the startup callback (when the context is not a REPACK decoding worker) is considered acceptable. Like: repack_startup(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, OutputPluginOptions *opt, bool is_init) ... if (!AmRepackWorker()) ereport(ERROR, errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), errmsg("this plugin can only be used by REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)")); Best Regards, Hou zj -
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> — 2026-06-08T19:50:16Z
On 2026-Jun-05, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > I have no objection to the proposed approach. But I would like to confirm > whether reporting an ERROR in the startup callback (when the context is not a > REPACK decoding worker) is considered acceptable. > > Like: > > repack_startup(LogicalDecodingContext *ctx, OutputPluginOptions *opt, > bool is_init) > ... > if (!AmRepackWorker()) > ereport(ERROR, > errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), > errmsg("this plugin can only be used by REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)")); Hmm, yeah, that works for me, we can ditch the magic number then. I'm considering something like the attached. I added the test case and edited nearby comments. Will stare some more at it tomorrow ... -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ -
Re: BUG #19500: pgrepack logical decoding plugin can crash assert builds via SQL decoding API
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> — 2026-06-09T18:18:01Z
On 2026-Jun-08, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hmm, yeah, that works for me, we can ditch the magic number then. I'm > considering something like the attached. I added the test case and > edited nearby comments. Will stare some more at it tomorrow ... Pushed, thanks everyone. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "¿Cómo puedes confiar en algo que pagas y que no ves, y no confiar en algo que te dan y te lo muestran?" (Germán Poo)