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 —
itis 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
