Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 05:32:34PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025, at 6:40 AM, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2025-Aug-21, Robert Treat wrote:
> >> What's the plan for clusterdb? It seems like we'd ideally create a
> >> stand alone pg_repackdb which replaces clusterdb and also allows us to
> >> remove the FULL options from vacuumdb.
> >
> > I don't think we should remove clusterdb, to avoid breaking any scripts
> > that work today. As you say, I would create the standalone pg_repackdb
> > to do what we need it to do (namely: run the REPACK commands) and leave
> > vacuumdb and clusterdb alone. Removing the obsolete commands and
> > options can be done in a few years.
>
> I would say that we need to plan the removal of these binaries (clusterdb and
> vacuumdb). We can start with a warning into clusterdb saying they should use
> pg_repackdb. In a few years, we can remove clusterdb. There were complaints
> about binary names without a pg_ prefix in the past [1].

Yeah.

> 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.

Michael