Re: REPACK and naming

On 18/09/2025 16:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 05:05:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:59:55AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I mean, it's PRETTY confusing that VACUUM FULL does something much
>>> more similar to CLUSTER than it is to VACUUM. We can't ever get out
>>> from under that confusion if we don't change something. I think it's
>>> more than fair to bikeshed what the verb should be that describes the
>>> action we currently describe by writing either VACUUM FULL or CLUSTER,
>>> but I agree with Álvaro that having one verb for both of those things
>>> makes a lot more sense than the status quo.
>> Yeah, I think we are in a bad naming place here with VACUUM FULL and
>> CLUSTER, and avoiding clarifying it because of a risk of future change
>> just seems unwise. We know it is confusing, and there are no plans to
>> expand VACUUM FULL or CLUSTER, so let's improve the user interface and
>> take the hit if things ever change in the future.
> Uh, if VACUUM FULL and CLUSTER functionality are going to eventually
> point to REPACK, REPACK is the wrong name. While I can see REPACK
> having a similar function to VACUUM FULL, the ordering idea of CLUSTER
> just doesn't fit into "repack". I am repacking in a specific order?
> What if I only want the order changed without repacking? When did I
> pack that I have to re-pack now?
>
> Of the names I have seen, I think REBUILD makes the most sense. I built
> the table --- I want it rebuilt now, and perhaps with a specific
> ordering.

+1

--

Vik Fearing