Re: doc: Clarify ANALYZE VERBOSE output

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: maciek(at)sakrejda(dot)org
Cc: Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: doc: Clarify ANALYZE VERBOSE output
Date: 2026-04-06 04:51:29
Message-ID: CAHGQGwE2dC5aNBgV5AtpMMdZNpkGn1PAa9o=whi8_Wb3m3ruAA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 3:10 AM Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> It makes sense to align these, but I think the existing VACUUM wording
> is not great. What do you think about something like the attached?
> Basically, I changed both option descriptions to just be
>
> Prints detailed progress for each table at <literal>INFO</literal> level.
>
> I think the idea of _progress_ is important to communicate here. The
> word "report" suggests more detailed information, that comes in a
> batch after the action is completed.

Referring to it only as "progress" seems like a step backward, doesn't it?
The VERBOSE option reports per-table activity details (e.g., pages to scan,
buffer usage), not just progress.

Since these details are shown for each table, they can also serve as progress
indicators, but they're more than that.

If that understanding is correct, the existing term "vacuum activity report"
seems more appropriate to me. Thought?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2026-04-06 05:17:14 Re: doc: Clarify ANALYZE VERBOSE output
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2026-04-05 23:00:03 Re: issue in the doc