| From: | shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Manu <manuelreyesbravo(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: REPACK enhancements |
| Date: | 2026-10-01 03:28:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAGRkXqQALou-8wV8MTG-BUhz2LGZuPn61mU5VE4hW8rTBkVd0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Antonin,
Thanks for your update.
I think v04 fixes the finalize_block_range() problem.
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.
If you give the new counter a slot that index builds don't write,
like 13, 0008 does not have to depend on 6958.
Thanks,
Shihao
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| nocfbot-repack-xid-at-lock.spec.txt | text/plain | 1.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2026-10-01 03:31:09 | Material node can report incorrect "Maximum Storage" in EXPLAIN |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-10-01 03:25:07 | Re: Session in aborted transaction misses effective_wal_level change |