4 ms·

Depends on how great you trust the quality of those released. `.1` is usually good enough for PSQL except the following issue. 14.4 was released with a fix on

• pilif 4y ago
  That was a nasty one, but then again, my recommendation would still be to use `pg_repack` over reindex concurrently because that one also gets you concurrent clustering and that one was not affected by this bug. I'm not downplaying the issue and index corruption is really bad, but I would wager a guess that admins who do need concurrent reindexing would also be aware of `pg_repack` and would prefer that anyways because of the other benefits it provides. This is probably why it took 6 months for the issue to be reported and fixed.
  • jtc331 4y ago
    pg_repack has some significant downsides in its implementation; I question whether it’s really a default over re-indexing concurrently. I’ve certainly not gotten that impression, and we maintain many very large Postgres clusters.
  • bluetech 4y ago
    What advantage does pg_repack have when you only rebuild an index? Or do you mean it has advantage when pg_repack is run on the entire table?