| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(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: | 2026-05-23 15:29:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K7Q=CNNr0_t5aXVD8t9UW2xSFdjOgG4cSB6-G2c8DK=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 11:52 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2026-May-14, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > The broader issue is that the entire logical decoding mechanism is
> > designed to process cluster-wide transactions. This patch tries to
> > bypass that foundational assumption, but only during the initial
> > snapshot construction while processing running_xacts record.
> >
> > To be clear, I am not against the idea of db-specific snapshots to
> > enable concurrent repacks. My concern is simply the time required to
> > get the architecture right. In its current state, we need more time to
> > carefully consider how this db-specific concept interacts with the
> > rest of the logical decoding machinery, which is built for
> > cluster-wide records.
>
> Hmm. So at this point I have to admit that the time I'll have before
> beta 1 is going to be very scarce. You're probably right that it's
> better to revert db-specific snapshots in pg19, and try again for 20.
>
Sounds reasonable.
> The revert should be a simple patch.
>
I also think so.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan Gonzalez V. | 2026-05-23 15:31:57 | Re: splitting pg_resetwal output strings |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2026-05-23 13:35:37 | Re: Report oldest xmin source when autovacuum cannot remove tuples |