| From: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: repack: fix a bug to reject deferrable primary key fallback for concurrent mode |
| Date: | 2026-04-20 14:52:15 |
| Message-ID: | 65564.1776696735@localhost |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I am continuing to test REPACK, and I found another issue.
>
> In check_concurrent_repack_requirements(), if a table has no replica identity index, the code falls back to using the primary key if one exists. The problem is that a deferrable primary key cannot be used for this purpose. WAL generation does not consider a deferrable primary key to be a replica identity, so concurrent mode may not receive enough old tuple information to replay concurrent changes.
Thanks for finding it, this is certainly a problem.
I'm just thinking if it's worth a separate error message.
RelationGetIndexList() just ignores the deferrable PK
if (replident == REPLICA_IDENTITY_DEFAULT && OidIsValid(pkeyIndex) && !pkdeferrable)
relation->rd_replidindex = pkeyIndex;
and if there's no other suitable index, the result is that there is no
identity index for the table. So the change attached here should be consistent
with this approach.
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix_identity_check.diff | text/x-diff | 594 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Burd | 2026-04-20 14:55:09 | Re: Add bms_offset_members() function for bitshifting Bitmapsets |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-04-20 14:42:06 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |