| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | REPACK and naming |
| Date: | 2025-09-17 21:03:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYbZ2c7viape0B+TAoa_t8WteNfu+RF8+3i=D1ZQZQFAg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 01:09, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > RETABLE just isn't a word. The code sometimes calls this a REWRITE of
> > a table, which would be reasonable.
>
> +1. I was reading this yesterday wondering why "REWRITE" didn't get a
> mention.
Agreed.
>
> The problem I have with REPACK is that "re" indicates that
> something is being re-done that's been done before. If you're calling
> REPACK for the first time on a table, that's not true.
As soon as you’ve written the first tuple you’ve begun “packing” the table
- repack then is simply unpacking it and putting back the stuff you want to
keep in possibly a structured way.
David J's "REBUILD" also seems ok. In a green field, you could then
> have "REBUILD TABLE ..." and "REBUILD INDEX ..."
>
Rebuild has some prior art apparently, which makes it appealing. But I’m
not a fan of the “shrink” usage the other products seem drawn to.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2025-09-17 21:05:38 | Re: REPACK and naming |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-17 21:00:42 | Re: New string-truncation warnings from GCC 15 |