Horton
Menu

Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]

Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>

View thread
From: Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-03-16T15:49:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 11:11 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On 2026-Mar-16, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
>

> > However, we don't live in that world, so I am opposed to allowing
> > table owners without REPLICATION to take any/all replication slots.
>
> I think requiring REPACK users to have the REPLICATION priv is rather
> user unfriendly.  Some potential REPACK users might not have any other
> use for replication at all.
>

For many users, I feel like repack concurrently making use of
replication machinery is an implementation detail that some will find
quite surprising (pg_repack doesn't use it), so I'd agree requiring
REPLICATION priv is both unfriendly and a bit counter intuitive,
especially if you need to run repack concurrently on a stand alone
server.

That said, I think Matthias is right that we can't allow "repackers"
to block "replicators"...

> > Note that most of my argument hinges on the impact on other, unrelated
> > databases/tables/sessions. Replication slots have a hard cap defined
> > at startup, and effective_wal_level increases the WAL generated by
> > practically all backends.
>
> I'd rather have a new GUC to declare a bunch of additional slots that
> are reserved exclusively for repack, set its default to something like
> 3, and call it a day.  If all repack slots are in use, you don't get to
> run repack, period.
>
> A slot costs nothing if unused, and we really don't want to make the
> interaction with regular replication more complicated than it is today.
>

I'm never excited about adding GUCs, but at first thought this seems
like a decent work-around; most people are unlikely to run multiple
repack concurrently's, but they can if needed. (I think the most
likely use case is on clusters using the "database per customer"
pattern, but if we have the guc, people will have a means to deal with
it).

Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net

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