On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, David Rowley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 01:09, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > > RETABLE just isn't a word. The code sometimes calls this a REWRITE of > > a table, which would be reasonable. > > +1. I was reading this yesterday wondering why "REWRITE" didn't get a > mention. Agreed. > > The problem I have with REPACK is that "re" indicates that > something is being re-done that's been done before. If you're calling > REPACK for the first time on a table, that's not true. As soon as you’ve written the first tuple you’ve begun “packing” the table - repack then is simply unpacking it and putting back the stuff you want to keep in possibly a structured way. David J's "REBUILD" also seems ok. In a green field, you could then > have "REBUILD TABLE ..." and "REBUILD INDEX ..." > Rebuild has some prior art apparently, which makes it appealing. But I’m not a fan of the “shrink” usage the other products seem drawn to. David J.
