| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Date: | 2026-02-01 22:31:48 |
| Message-ID: | 202602012202.qo2k6ip7hoer@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2026-Feb-01, Mihail Nikalayeu wrote:
> Also, I am still not sure if MVCC-safe implementation is worth
> its complexity compared with "relcheckxmin"approach [0].
I'm not sure it's acceptable to cause other sessions to raise errors if
they query the table being repacked (or a table repacked recently).
That sounds extremely unpleasant. Imagine a long-running transactions
that runs enormous queries for many hours or even days, being killed
near the end because some DBA decided to run REPACK on a table.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mihail Nikalayeu | 2026-02-01 22:37:37 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Previous Message | Andrey Silitskiy | 2026-02-01 19:52:36 | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |