| From: | Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2026-05-11 20:12:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAOtHd0CEvKrPnOx6_nv--R5sRwg47QqbrQG6P_2D0QQwxO9rcg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 4:26 PM surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On the wording debate: I think David and Maciek are both pointing at
> the same real issue, the description should convey (a) "what kind of
> information" users will see, and (b) "when" they'll see it.
>
> Given that, I'd suggest leaning toward something like:
> "Sends a detailed INFO message to the client for each table as it is processed."
>
> I feel with the above message we balance, the server's perspective ("sends" rather than "prints"), and conveys timing ("after each table is processed").
I agree with the analysis, and I think the proposed wording works well.
> This same phrasing could work for both VACUUM and ANALYZE VERBOSE, keeping them consistent.
+1 for consistency.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2026-05-11 23:07:57 | Re: Improve PQauthDataHook_type docs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-05-06 14:13:03 | Re: Suspected documentation error |