On 2025-08-23, Michael Banck wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 05:32:34PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> 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. > > Unless pg_repack has the same (or a superset of) CLI and behaviour as > vacuumdb (I haven't checked, but doubt it?), I think replacing vacuumdb > with a symlink to pg_repack will lead to much more breakage in existing > scripts/automation than clusterdb, which I guess is used orders of > magnitude less frequently than vacumdb. Yeah, I completely disagree with the idea of getting rid of vacuumdb. We can, maybe, in a distant future, get rid of the --full option to vacuumdb. But the rest of the vacuumdb behavior must stay, I think, because REPACK is not VACUUM — it is only VACUUM FULL. And we want to make that distinction very clear. We can also, in a few years, get rid of clusterdb. But I don't think we need to deprecate it just yet. -- Álvaro Herrera
