Re: pg_utility ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dmitry Dolgov
Subject Re: pg_utility ?
Date
Msg-id e6qvrdlnqzg4gjcp7gzdzhcmnplsgwxe6g6pnm5wslm4ukiava@kblrrztkri76
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_utility ?  (Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 06:52:19PM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> One of the things that came up during the pgconf.eu talk about REPACK,
> proposed by Christoph Berg, is that adding another utility pg_repackdb
> to run it from the command line adds more noise to an already noisy tool
> neighbourhood.  He asked, how about we instead add a generic tool to run
> utility commands?  So the user would be able to do things such as 
> 
> pg_utility vacuum -t tab1 -t tab2        # what vacuumdb does
> pg_utility analyze -t tab1 -t tab2        # what vacuumdb -Z does
> pg_utility vacuum analyze -t tab1 -t tab2    # what vacuumdb -z does
> pg_utility cluster -t tab1 -t tab2        # what clusterdb does
> pg_utility reindex -t tab1 -t tab2        # what reindexdb does
> 
> Each such tool would retain more or less its current behavior, i.e., its
> ability to run things in parallel, to discover tables to operate on
> based on circumstances, to silently ignore objects depending on the user
> lacking specific privilege bits, and so on.
> 
> This way, instead of an entire pg_repackdb tool, we would add just a new
> mode to pg_utility:
> 
> pg_utility repack -t tab1 -t tab2        # what pg_repackdb would do

FWIW I find the idea interesting, it would help structure the tooling
landscape. Looking around, looks like it's common to have some sort of
manager or a toolbox for similar purposes.

Would it only be allowed to run anything involving CMD_UTILITY, or are
"utility commands" meant here in more broader sense?



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpointer write combining
Next
From: David Geier
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance issues with parallelism and LIMIT