On 2026-Mar-25, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While reviewing/testing V44 patch set , i found that if we run REPACK
> (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws
> the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead
> of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because
> ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before
> verifying the transaction state.
>
> I attached a patch below to maintain consistency with other commands
> like VACUUM, REINDEX , and more and also not to confuse the user ,
> because if user runs REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside
> a transaction block, if user gets "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires
> explicit table name" and then to correct the mistake the user gives
> table and again runs the in transaction block , just to find out a new
> error "cannot run inside a transaction block".
I don't disagree with changing this, but AFAICS the patch as presented
provokes multiple test failures.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
