Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]

Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>

From: "Euler Taveira" <euler@eulerto.com>

To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>, "Robert Treat" <rob@xzilla.net>

Cc: "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, "Antonin Houska" <ah@cybertec.at>, "Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, "Mihail Nikalayeu" <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>

Date: 2025-08-22T20:32:34Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Improve REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) error messages some more
- 378dffaf8c80 19 (unreleased) landed
Add CONCURRENTLY option to REPACK
- 28d534e2ae0a 19 (unreleased) landed
Make index_concurrently_create_copy more general
- 33bf7318f94c 19 (unreleased) landed
Document the 'command' column of pg_stat_progress_repack
- a630ac5c2016 19 (unreleased) landed
Introduce the REPACK command
- ac58465e0618 19 (unreleased) landed
Split vacuumdb to create vacuuming.c/h
- c4067383cb2c 19 (unreleased) landed
Revert changes to CONCURRENTLY that "sped up" Xmin advance
- 042b584c7f7d 14.4 cited

On Fri, Aug 22, 2025, at 6:40 AM, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Aug-21, Robert Treat wrote:
>
>> What's the plan for clusterdb? It seems like we'd ideally create a
>> stand alone pg_repackdb which replaces clusterdb and also allows us to
>> remove the FULL options from vacuumdb.
>
> I don't think we should remove clusterdb, to avoid breaking any scripts
> that work today.  As you say, I would create the standalone pg_repackdb
> to do what we need it to do (namely: run the REPACK commands) and leave
> vacuumdb and clusterdb alone.  Removing the obsolete commands and
> options can be done in a few years.
>

I would say that we need to plan the removal of these binaries (clusterdb and
vacuumdb). We can start with a warning into clusterdb saying they should use
pg_repackdb. In a few years, we can remove clusterdb. There were complaints
about binary names without a pg_ prefix in the past [1].

I don't think we need to keep vacuumdb. Packagers can keep a symlink (vacuumdb)
to pg_repackdb. We can add a similar warning message saying they should use
pg_repackdb if the symlink is used.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJgfmqXYYKXR%2BQUhEa3cq6pc8dV0Hu7QvOUccm7R0TkC%3DT-%2B%3DA%40mail.gmail.com

-- 
Euler Taveira
EDB   https://www.enterprisedb.com/