RE: Adding REPACK [concurrently]

Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>

From: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>

To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

Cc: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com>, Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>

Date: 2026-05-27T08:08:41Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

v3-0001-Allow-old-WAL-recycling-during-REPACK-CONCURRENTL.patch (application/octet-stream)
v3-0002-Add-a-test-for-repack-concurrently.patch (application/octet-stream)

On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:32 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On 2026-May-25, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> 
> > After listening to the REPACK talk at pgconf.dev this year, I
> > understand that WAL accumulation during REPACK CONCURRENTLY is not
> > intended behavior. I think we can consider fixing this in the current
> > release. Attached is the rebased patch, with comments adjusted based on
> Chao Li's comments.
> 
> You're right, this is a thinko.  I'll look at your patch hoping to get it pushed
> shortly.  I wonder if we should add a TAP test to verify that WAL files are
> actually removed?  Sounds a bit excessive TBH, but maybe it isn't really.

I tried a bit, and the test complexity and speed (< 1s) appear to be within
acceptable limits. I'm attaching 0002 as a reference test.

0001 remains unchanged.

Best Regards,
Hou zj