MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CADzfLwW=b=U3e6aasi=XorN8hZSiCKZErKs9qhyK7m=w=wokAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <202508282139.j24af7vwn7pz@alvherre.pgsql>
In-Reply-To: <202508282139.j24af7vwn7pz@alvherre.pgsql>
From: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 02:32:00 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CADzfLwWm3hA3=j6dujKMP9BdMzZM7L_7S_TqnCyQK-GSHychFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CADzfLwWm3hA3%3Dj6dujKMP9BdMzZM7L_7S_TqnCyQK-GSHychFQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello, =C3=81lvaro!

> If others are motivated enough to certify it, maybe we can consider it.
> But I don't think I'm going to have time to get this part reviewed and
> committed in time for 19, so you might need another committer.

I don't think it is realistic to involve another committer - it is
just a well-known curse of all non-committers :)

> > > Because having an MVCC-safe mode has drawbacks, IMO we should make it
> > > optional.

As far as I can see, the proposed "lightweight" solutions don't
introduce any drawbacks - unless something has been overlooked.

> > Do you mean some option for the command? Like REPACK (CONCURRENTLY, SAF=
E)?
> Yes, exactly that.

To be honest that approach feels a little bit strange for me. I work
in the database-consumer (not database-developer) industry and 90% of
DevOps engineers (or similar roles who deal with database maintenance
now) have no clue what MVCC is - and it is industry standard nowadays.