| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "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: | 2025-06-06 13:57:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYgErraNuAUme-6dSwmwNSSStC8SL7560Qy2sAtUG5J+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Friday, June 6, 2025, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since last_vacuum and vacuum_count in pg_stat_all_tables explicitly mention
> that they don't include VACUUM FULL ("not counting VACUUM FULL"), I think
> we should add the same clarification to the description of
> total_vacuum_time.
> This field also excludes VACUUM FULL, and without this note, users might
> mistakenly think the time spent on VACUUM FULL is included. Thought?
>
> <structfield>total_vacuum_time</structfield> <type>double
> precision</type>
> </para>
> <para>
> - Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds.
> + Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds
> + (not counting <command>VACUUM FULL</command>).
> (This includes the time spent sleeping due to cost-based delays.)
> </para></entry>
> </row>
>
Makes sense. Our naming this table rewrite vacuum full does confuse
people into thinking it is related to vacuum.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2025-06-06 15:13:25 | Re: Clarify VACUUM FULL exclusion in total_vacuum_time docs |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-06-06 11:38:35 | Clarify VACUUM FULL exclusion in total_vacuum_time docs |