| From: | Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | maciek(at)sakrejda(dot)org |
| Cc: | surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: doc: Clarify ANALYZE VERBOSE output |
| Date: | 2026-05-14 12:14:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAOzEurTyYgcPFAJGp5=BF9gObqgs8neQOvWo0g+txJMA8deYyw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 5:15 AM Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Sorry for the delayed response, and thank you for the feedback. I
agree with the points raised, so I have updated the patch accordingly.
--
Best regards,
Shinya Kato
NTT OSS Center
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-doc-Clarify-VERBOSE-output-for-ANALYZE-and-VACUUM.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2026-05-14 15:30:15 | Re: Suspected documentation error |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2026-05-14 12:05:23 | Re: Please clarify that Timestamp with Timezone doesn't preserve the timezone. |