On 2025-Jan-30, Michael Banck wrote: > > I haven't addressed the problem of a new command yet - for that I'd like to > > see some sort of consensus, so that I do not have to do all the related > > changes many times. > > Well, looks like this patch-set is blocked on the bikeshedding part? > > Somebody should call a shot here, then.
A bunch of people discussed this patch in today's developer meeting in Brussels. There's pretty much a consensus on using the verb REPACK CONCURRENTLY for this new command -- where unadorned REPACK would be VACUUM FULL, and we'd have something like REPACK WITH INDEX or maybe REPACK USING INDEX to take the CLUSTER place. For the record, there was an observation that 1) if logical decoding is not enabled, REPACK CONCURRENTLY would not work, and 2) that sites being forced to enable logical decoding (even if transiently) to allow this, might take a considerable performance hit, and that we shouldn't entangle our features in that way. I don't have an opinion on these things at this point; knowing more about exactly what the performance impact is would be good. Regarding logical decoding, the conversation continued that maybe it'd be good if the feature can be automatically enabled transiently for that particular table for as long as needed, and disabled afterwards. But like with the previous concern, I don't really have an opinion without understanding it more deeply. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
