Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
| От | Chao Li |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 704E4371-FDA5-488F-B5E9-6B6F86A06669@gmail.com обсуждение |
| Ответ на | RE: Adding REPACK [concurrently] ("Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On Apr 10, 2026, at 18:53, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > When testing REPACK concurrently, I noticed that all WALs are retained from > the moment REPACK begins copying data to the new table until the command > finishes replaying concurrent changes on the new table and stops the repack > decoding worker. > > I understand the reason: the REPACK command itself starts a long-running > transaction, and logical decoding does not advance restart_lsn beyond the > oldest running transaction's start position. As a result, slot.restart_lsn > remains unchanged, preventing the checkpointer from recycling WALs. > > However, since REPACK can run for a long time (hours or even days), I'd like > to confirm whether this is expected behavior or if we plan to improve it > in the future ? And additionally, IIUC, REPACK without using concurrent option > does not have this issue. > > Given that we do not restart a REPACK, I think the repack decoding worker > should be able to advance restart_lsn each time after writing changes > (similar to how a physical slot behaves). To illustrate this, I've written > a patch (attached) that implements this approach, and it works fine for me. > > BTW, catalog_xmin also won't advance, but that seems not a big issue as > the REPACK transaction itself also holds a snapshot that retains catalog tuples, > so advancing catalog_xmin wouldn't change the situation anyway. > > Thoughts ? > > Best Regards, > Hou zj > <v1-0001-Allow-old-WALs-to-be-removed-during-REPACK-CONCUR.patch> I found the same problem with LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation and posted a fix in a separate thread [1]. So I would withdrawmy patch. Looking at this patch, the change is exactly the same as what I did in [1], but I think the code comment should be updatedas well. For the comment change, please see my patch in [1]. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/D8D9F770-DAA2-482C-A7E0-F87E5104C13E%40gmail.com Best regards, -- Chao Li (Evan) HighGo Software Co., Ltd. https://www.highgo.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: