| From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REPACK and naming |
| Date: | 2025-09-17 13:01:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAEudQAo7AgiGnvoCNM7c9HZwwiadDYHeme7Kft1g9ZpG4bzs0Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em ter., 16 de set. de 2025 às 13:40, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
escreveu:
> I am starting to get worried about the confusing of adding a REPACK
> command. We already have a lot of confusion around vacuum and analyze:
>
> * autoanalyze does vacuum and analyze
> * VACUUM FULL is much different from VACUUM
>
> It seems if we add REPACK as a command, it is somewhere between VACUUM
> FULL and VACUUM in severity/impact. Should we be rethinking the naming
> in this area?
>
SqlServer has similar feature.
SHRINK
best regards,
Ranier Vilela
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-09-17 13:09:28 | Re: REPACK and naming |
| Previous Message | Florents Tselai | 2025-09-17 12:56:57 | Re: encode/decode support for base64url |