| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarify VACUUM FULL exclusion in total_vacuum_time docs |
| Date: | 2025-07-15 16:27:51 |
| Message-ID: | 5400d859b612e1365a4bae3cf47fec1c3ed736ab.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 10:27 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On the other hand, reading the VACUUM reference page, I get the
> > feeling that the new syntax with parentheses should be favored.
> > After all, the old syntax doesn't support any of the recently
> > added options and restricts the option order.
> >
> > So perhaps we should start propagating the parentheses more, and
> > the documentation is the perfect place to do that.
>
> That might make sense, but how far we want to take it in the first go
> around seems like a discussion that is best put forth in a separate
> thread / patch.
Makes sense, and I have no objection to the patch as it is.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-07-15 20:38:13 | Re: please define 'statement' in the glossary |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2025-07-15 14:27:17 | Re: Clarify VACUUM FULL exclusion in total_vacuum_time docs |