Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]

From: Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: "Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PSD Japan FSI)" <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Date: 2026-03-12 19:15:13
Message-ID: CAJSLCQ3WR0eUCLaFCAR7wEQoRQkiN7mgnNrKy6horosNtyQhow@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 2:25 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2026-Mar-11, Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PSD Japan FSI) wrote:
>
> > Hi, Hackers.
> > Thanks for developing this great feature.
> > The committed documentation for the pg_stat_progress_repack view was missing the explanation for the "command" column.
> > I've attached a small patch for monitoring.sgml.
>
> Thanks, pushed. I also made some edits to the description of the
> pg_stat_progress_cluster view while there. I've been wondering for some
> time whether we should drop that one for pg19.
>

ISTM the user facing docs refer to cluster as an "obsolete" variant /
spelling, rather than something marked as deprecated. This feels like
it is meant to imply that the old functionality is not planned for
removal in some future release (ie. deprecated), but that you may find
that certain bits of support for it are already removed/broken. If
that was the intention, I guess it gives justification to remove it
now; that said it does seem rather unfriendly to not give any kind of
bridge release to get from one side to the other, so I think the ideal
would be to keep it for v19 and remove it in v20.

Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2026-03-12 19:20:07 Re: Change initdb default to the builtin collation provider
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2026-03-12 18:59:43 Tighten asserts on ParallelWorkerNumber a little bit