Horton
Menu

Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Date: 2026-03-31T10:47:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 10:31 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> Lastly, 0008 is "Teach snapshot builder to skip transactions running
> REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)" which I see as the least mature of the pack.  I
> would really like to be able to squash it with 0003, but I'm not yet
> trusting it enough.
>

Few comments/questions by looking 0008 alone:

1.
+ TransactionId *xids_repack = NULL;
+ bool logical_decoding_enabled = IsLogicalDecodingEnabled();

  Assert(!RecoveryInProgress());

...
...

  /*
  * Allocating space for maxProcs xids is usually overkill; numProcs would
  * be sufficient.  But it seems better to do the malloc while not holding
@@ -2663,11 +2672,14 @@ GetRunningTransactionData(void)
  */
  if (CurrentRunningXacts->xids == NULL)
  {
+ /* FIXME probably fails if logical decoding is enable on-the-fly */
+ int nrepack = logical_decoding_enabled ? MAX_REPACK_XIDS : 0;

This FIXME is important to fix for this patch, otherwise, we can't
rely on transactions remembered as repack_concurrently.

2.
*
+ /*
+ * TODO Consider a GUC to reserve certain amount of replication slots for
+ * REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) and using it here.
+ */
+#define MAX_REPACK_XIDS 16
+

This sounds a bit scary as reserving replication slots for REPACK
(CONCURRENTLY) may not be what users expect. But it is not clear why
replication slots need to be reserved for this.

IIUC, two reasons why logical decoding can ignore REPACK
(CONCURRENTLY) are (a) does not perform any catalog changes relevant
to logical decoding, (b) neither walsenders nor backends performing
logical decoding needs to care sending the WAL generated by REPACK
(CONCURRENTLY). Is that understanding correct? If so, we may want to
clarify why we want to ignore this command's WAL while sending changes
downstream in the commit message or give some reference of the patch
where the same is mentioned. This can help reviewing this patch
independently.

BTW, are we intending to commit this patch series for PG19?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Allow old WAL recycling during REPACK CONCURRENTLY

  2. Advance restart_lsn more eagerly in LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation

  3. Remove unnecessary signal handler change

  4. Improve REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) error messages some more

  5. Revert "Allow logical replication snapshots to be database-specific"

  6. Move REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) test out of stock regression tests

  7. REPACK: do not require REPLICATION or LOGIN

  8. Add missing initialization

  9. Simplify declaration of memcpy target

  10. Reserve replication slots specifically for REPACK

  11. doc: Add an example of REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)

  12. Allow logical replication snapshots to be database-specific

  13. Avoid different-size pointer-to-integer cast

  14. Fix valgrind failure

  15. Add CONCURRENTLY option to REPACK

  16. Rename cluster.c to repack.c (and corresponding .h)

  17. Allow index_create to suppress index_build progress reporting

  18. Make index_concurrently_create_copy more general

  19. Document the 'command' column of pg_stat_progress_repack

  20. Introduce the REPACK command

  21. Toggle logical decoding dynamically based on logical slot presence.

  22. Split vacuumdb to create vacuuming.c/h

  23. Remove ReorderBufferTupleBuf structure.

  24. Revert changes to CONCURRENTLY that "sped up" Xmin advance

  25. VACUUM: ignore indexing operations with CONCURRENTLY