Hi, On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 1:45 PM Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 12:57 PM Bharath Rupireddy > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If the table AM doesn't support logical decoding, concurrent repack > > > would silently lose some table data as it misses the changes > > > happened during the rewrites. > > > > Yes, that's correct. I came to the same conclusion. > > > > > I think we should have the check for it. > > > One idea would be to have a new table AM callback returning true if > > > the table AM supports concurrent repack (i.e., its rmgr provides > > > rm_decode callback), but I think it's not the right time to introduce > > > a new table AM callback. > > > > Agreed. Adding a new table AM callback needs consensus and is time > > consuming. Perhaps we can try for HEAD based on field reports that > > require the concurrent repack feature for non-heap table AMs. > > > > > So restricting it to heap for v19 seems fine > > > to me. > > > > +1. I will send a patch soon. > > Please find the attached patch. I didn't add a test, I don't think we need > one.
Added the limitation to the repack docs. Please find the attached v2 patch. Sorry for the noise. -- Bharath Rupireddy Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
v2-0001-Restrict-concurrent-repack-to-the-heap-access-met.patch
Description: Binary data
