| From: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Manu <manuelreyesbravo(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: REPACK enhancements |
| Date: | 2026-10-01 18:29:06 |
| Message-ID: | 28204.1790879346@localhost |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The compute_new_xmax_infomask() Assert is easy to hit. The
> AccessExclusiveLock in rebuild_relation_finish_concurrent() assigns an
> XID, so any UPDATE or DELETE committed while REPACK waits for it fails
> on replay. The attached spec does it every time.
Ah, I see, the assertion itself is wrong. Thanks.
> If you give the new counter a slot that index builds don't write,
> like 13, 0008 does not have to depend on 6958.
It'd work, but if [1] gets merged, this workaround would be confusing.
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6958/
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-10-01 18:30:19 | Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) can crash a logical decoding session |
| Previous Message | Rustam ALLAKOV | 2026-10-01 18:26:21 | Re: Fold NOT IN / <> ALL expressions containing NULL to FALSE |