Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) doesn't handle invalid indexes

> On Aug 31, 2026, at 16:08, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think your statement has its own answer embedded in it: It's acceptable for REPACK, a brand-new command, to have different behavior in the presence of invalid indexes specifically because it would be a behavior change if we pushed that change to other commands.
>
> But that's not exactly what happens here: currently REPACK and REPACK
> (CONCURRENTLY) behave differently in the presence of invalid indexes,
> and that is definitely a bug.

"Differently" as such isn't a bug. "Incorrectly" would be. If REPACK AND REPACK CONCURRENTLY simply refused to run on a table with invalid indexes, that's minimally intrusive and fixes the bug. I agree that the ideal situation is that they work tables with invalid indexes, but I don't consider it a bug if they just refused to.