Re: REPACK and naming

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 7:42 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Peter E suggested that since we have REINDEX to rewrite indexes, then
> the command to rewrite tables should be RETABLE. I haven't been able to
> get myself to like that idea, and also I think that was a bit
> tongue-in-cheek, but if you like RETABLE better than REPACK, then maybe
> we can have a vote to decide which one of those names to use. However,
> I don't think that change would make a tremendous difference, and also I
> don't think RETABLE is enough of an English name to become a command
> name.

I think RETABLE is not a proposal to be taken seriously. That's
extremely confusing.

I don't love the name REPACK, but I think it's good enough. If we come
up with something better, great.

I agree that having a single command that does both VACUUM FULL and
CLUSTER makes a lot more sense than the status quo, which is a
confusing historical accident.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com