Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]

On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 at 15:08, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2026-Apr-06, vignesh C wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 at 02:12, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> > Few comments:
>
> Thanks for reviewing this patch!
>
> > 1) Can we add a comment why we should error out here, as repack
> > concurrently requires this whereas repack does not require this check.
> > Even if it is required for decoding can't it be handled by replica
> > identity full:
> > + /*
> > + * If the identity index is not set due to replica identity being, PK
> > + * might exist.
> > + */
> > + ident_idx = RelationGetReplicaIndex(rel);
> > + if (!OidIsValid(ident_idx) && OidIsValid(rel->rd_pkindex))
> > + ident_idx = rel->rd_pkindex;
> > + if (!OidIsValid(ident_idx))
> > + ereport(ERROR,
> > +
> > errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> > + errmsg("cannot process relation \"%s\"",
> > + RelationGetRelationName(rel)),
> > + errhint("Relation \"%s\" has no
> > identity index.",
> > + RelationGetRelationName(rel)));
>
> Ah, I was just rewriting that comment moments ago. I think we could
> make it work with replica identity full in theory, but I'm guessing it
> would be useless. You really need an index that lets you locate the
> affected tuples; otherwise the replay would take forever. If the table
> is big, that would make the whole thing unworkable. If the table isn't
> big, then you can probably just use straight repack without too much
> disruption.
>
> /*
> * Obtain the replica identity index -- either one that has been set
> * explicitly, or the primary key. If none of these cases apply, the
> * table cannot be repacked concurrently. It might be possible to have
> * repack work with a FULL replica identity; however that requires more
> * work and is not implemented yet.
> */

Should this be mentioned in XXX comment:
It might be possible to have repack work with a FULL replica identity;
however that requires more work and is not implemented yet.

> > 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?

Yes, I was thinking of that.

> 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.

I will verify this scenario through debugger.

Regards,
Vignesh