| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de |
| Subject: | Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) fails when table owner lacks CONNECT |
| Date: | 2026-08-27 19:40:44 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACV-sENC3mfCyvAVWKfuWVNGYBJ1+B6eHcfpMR9Po+MKXg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 12:19 PM Nathan Bossart
<nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> The patch looks reasonable to me.
+1.
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 03:55:11PM -0300, Matheus Alcantara wrote:
> > Added this new test case on attached.
>
> I'm not sure the new tests are necessary. It seems unlikely that we'll
> accidentally remove the flags down the road.
I don't fully agree with this. These tests helped identify an issue,
and removing these flags from a fairly new repack code is a behavioral
change, even if it doesn't bring in additional code coverage. Maybe
have these just for HEAD?
--
Bharath Rupireddy
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-08-27 19:48:53 | Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) doesn't check the table AM |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-08-27 19:39:35 | Re: REPACK (ANALYZE) within transaction block segfaults |