Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]

From: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Date: 2026-04-06 11:23:57
Message-ID: 83936.1775474637@localhost
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:

> On 2026-Apr-06, vignesh C wrote:

> > 2) Do you think it will be good to add a test to simulate a case where
> > one of the swap_replation_files is successful and a failure after
> > that. We can verify that the oid should still point to old oids:
>
> Hmm, it's not clear to me in which cases this can happen. Are you
> thinking that the first swap_replation_files call dies because of
> out-of-memory?
>
> Note that the really weird cases, like pg_class or mapped relations, are
> directly rejected. So we don't get into the branch with
> !RelFileNumberIsValid, and so on.
>
> I mean -- I'm not opposed to adding a test case for it. But I suspect
> it's going to be somewhat annoying to write.

After all, I think we'd end up testing whether transaction abort works
correctly.

--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lukas Fittl 2026-04-06 11:25:36 Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?
Previous Message Mihail Nikalayeu 2026-04-06 11:21:32 Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]