| From: | Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, maciek(at)sakrejda(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: doc: Clarify ANALYZE VERBOSE output |
| Date: | 2026-04-13 21:26:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAOtHd0AC7Yg-Fz+1uRHc=mqsVtpH6b5NM-uL_Chd2vwKT5jf7g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 6:57 PM Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2026, 14:17 David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> How about something like:
>> “Enables sending an INFO message to the client (and server log) as each table is processed. This message contains: etc…”
>>
>> And then let’s tell the user what info they are getting and what it means (where necessary).
>>
>> I concur being specific about when these messages arrive, and IMO where, should be specified. But losing the detail of “report” is not good; but not sure why we are being vague so suggest we just go all-in on specificity.
>
> Thank you for the suggestion. I'd prefer to keep this patch focused; since the verbose output of both commands is subject to change, listing every individual field in the documentation would require frequent updates.
>
> I believe the current "Outputs" section is intentionally kept simple to minimize maintenance overhead. While expanding it might be a worthwhile follow-up, it probably deserves its own dedicated discussion.
+1, listing output details is signing up for busywork. But I do like
the “as each table is processed" wording: it's clear on when you'll
see output. Given the feedback above (that just using the word
"progress" obscures that you'll see actual stats), maybe something
along these lines:
"Prints detailed stats at <literal>INFO</literal> level for each table
as it is processed."
? I still think "report" is the wrong term for something that happens
incrementally.
I don't feel strongly about this, though: if everyone is okay with
consolidating on the existing VACUUM wording, that's still better than
inconsistency.
Thanks,
Maciek
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2026-04-13 22:28:28 | Re: doc: Clarify ANALYZE VERBOSE output |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2026-04-13 08:24:21 | Re: pgsql: ssl: Serverside SNI support for libpq |