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/
