On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 5:47 AM Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > On 2026-Sep-04, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > > I reviewed the patch. It's simple and I agree to add a check for user > > catalog tables. I've slightly rephrased the comment in > > check_concurrent_repack_requirements() to clarify the reason why > > REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) doesn't support user catalog tables while it > > does for normal tables even though it's a MVCC-unsafe operation. Also > > updated the commit message as well. Please review it. > > Thanks, I gave this a look and I think it's okay. I'm not sure about > the exact wording of the error message though, > > > + ereport(ERROR, > > + errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), > > + errmsg("cannot execute %s on relation \"%s\"", > > + "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)", > > RelationGetRelationName(rel)), > > + errhint("%s is not supported for tables used > > as catalog tables.", > > + "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)")); > > ERROR: cannot execute REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) on relation "foobar" > HINT: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) is not supported for tables used as catalog > tables. > > I think the HINT should really be DETAIL, and I'm not sure we need to > mention the command again there. On the other hand, I'm not really > happy with the term "tables used as catalog tables". In the > documentation we use the term "user provided catalog tables" or simply > "user catalog tables" (see <sect2 id="logicaldecoding-capabilities">). > So how about something like this? > > ERROR: cannot execute REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) on relation "foobar" > DETAIL: This operation is not supported for user catalog tables.
Looks good to me. > Would you push this patch, or do you want me to? I can take it if you are okay, as it's a trivial fix. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
