| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Michael Banck" <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Robert Treat" <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Antonin Houska" <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Mihail Nikalayeu" <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Date: | 2025-08-23 14:22:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1764804a-2bc1-46e9-9008-82ea39cb8c81@app.fastmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-08-23, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 05:32:34PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> I don't think we need to keep vacuumdb. Packagers can keep a symlink (vacuumdb)
>> to pg_repackdb. We can add a similar warning message saying they should use
>> pg_repackdb if the symlink is used.
>
> Unless pg_repack has the same (or a superset of) CLI and behaviour as
> vacuumdb (I haven't checked, but doubt it?), I think replacing vacuumdb
> with a symlink to pg_repack will lead to much more breakage in existing
> scripts/automation than clusterdb, which I guess is used orders of
> magnitude less frequently than vacumdb.
Yeah, I completely disagree with the idea of getting rid of vacuumdb. We can, maybe, in a distant future, get rid of the --full option to vacuumdb. But the rest of the vacuumdb behavior must stay, I think, because REPACK is not VACUUM — it is only VACUUM FULL. And we want to make that distinction very clear.
We can also, in a few years, get rid of clusterdb. But I don't think we need to deprecate it just yet.
--
Álvaro Herrera
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-08-23 14:36:07 | Re: vacuumdb --missing-stats-only and permission issue |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-08-23 14:17:59 | Re: List TAP test files in makefiles |