On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 5:12 PM Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2026-Apr-01, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > BTW, is the reason to skip REPACK while building a snapshot is that it > > can take a long time to finish? > > As I understand the issue, yes, that's precisely the problem: if you > have one REPACK running, then starting a second REPACK (which requires > building a new snapshot) would have to wait until the first REPACK is > over. In other words, you wouldn't be able to have two repacks running > concurrently. This sounds like a problematic requirement. So having > snapbuild ignore REPACK is there to allow the second REPACK to work at > all. But more generally, *all* users of snapbuild would be prevented > from starting until REPACK is done; so if you have a very very large > table that takes a long time to repack, then everything would be blocked > behind it until it completes, which sounds extremely unpleasant. > > So, if we're unable to get this particular patch in, we would have to > have a big fat warning in the docs, telling people to be careful about > other load if they choose to run concurrent repack -- it could have > serious consequences. >
Right, I think during this time logical workers will keep timing out and restarting without any progress because during this wait, we won't be sending keep_alive messages. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
