| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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: | 2025-07-14 16:51:30 |
| Message-ID: | b1cfd248-6860-4a95-bb62-07009f5e486e@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 2025/06/18 6:53, Robert Treat wrote:
> I think the more cases where you document this behavior (and I do like
> the idea of documenting it for total_vacuum_time), the more one is
> likely to think that places where it is not documented operate
> differently. To that end, I think documenting it for
> n_ins_since_vacuum as well is a good idea, but I don't feel strongly
> that it needs to be backpatched; the old documentation wasn't wrong
> per se, rather this is a documentation improvement as a result of new
> development.
Agreed. The attached patch updates the docs to clarify that both
total_vacuum_time and n_ins_since_vacuum exclude VACUUM FULL.
Unless there are any objections, I'll commit this to master and
back-patch it to v18 only.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-doc-Clarify-that-total_vacuum_time-excludes-VACUU.patch | text/plain | 2.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-07-14 17:09:24 | Re: please define 'statement' in the glossary |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-07-14 16:19:41 | Re: please define 'statement' in the glossary |