On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 1:25 PM Sami Imseih <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I've reviewed the 0001 patch first as it's an open item. There are
> > some minor comments:
>
> Thanks!
>
> > -       expected to be very brief.
> > +       expected to be very brief, except for
> > +       <command>REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)</command>, where it also covers 
> > enabling
> > +       logical decoding and then initializing it.  Enabling has nothing to 
> > do
> > +       if <xref linkend="guc-effective-wal-level"/> is already
> > +       <literal>logical</literal>; otherwise it waits for all backends to
> > +       acknowledge that they started writing the additional WAL information
> > +       that logical decoding requires.  Initializing then waits for the
> >
> > The logical decoding activation waits for all processes to acknowledge
> > it, not only backends.
>
> Fair. I updated it.
>
> > +       transactions that had already been assigned a transaction ID to 
> > end, so
> > +       this phase can last as long as the longest of those transactions.
> >
> > During the logical decoding initialization, the snapshot builder also
> > has to wait for transactions that started after the initialization
> > began (i.e., those that started while it was in the BUILDING_SNAPSHOT
> > state). So this phase can last longer than the longest of the
> > transactions that
> > were running when it started. How about rephrasing it as follows?
> >
> >         expected to be very brief, except for
> >         <command>REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)</command>, where it also covers 
> > enabling
> >         logical decoding and then initializing it.  Enabling has nothing to 
> > do
> >         if <xref linkend="guc-effective-wal-level"/> is already
> >         <literal>logical</literal>; otherwise it waits for all processes to
> >         acknowledge that they started writing the additional WAL information
> >         that logical decoding requires.  Initializing then waits for the
> >         transactions that have been assigned a transaction ID to end,
> >         including ones that started while this wait was in progress, so this
> >         phase can last longer than the longest transaction running when the
> >         command started.
>
> Good point. I used what you provided and I realized that in my v1 I was also
> specifically calling out that "waits for the transactions that have
> been assigned a transaction ID to end"
> also includes other REPACK CONCURRENTLY operations. This may not be obvious,
> so it's worth a callout.

Thank you for updating the patch! I've pushed the 0001 patch as it
looks good to me.

I'll review 0002 patch and send review comments.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com


Reply via email to