| 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: | 2025-06-17 14:54:48 |
| Message-ID: | bb97b8d4-2f44-4b95-9b82-a54ecbce9e76@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 2025/06/13 21:09, Robert Treat wrote:
> Well, I admit I mostly mentioned it because when I noticed this one
> wasn't documented the same way the other ones were, I second-guessed
> myself about if I knew how it really behaved and did a quick test to
> confirm :-)
> I suspect others might have similar confusion.
Maybe I failed to follow your point here... Are you suggesting it's worth
mentioning that n_ins_since_vacuum doesn't count VACUUM FULL, to help
avoid potential user confusion? If so, since n_ins_since_vacuum was
introduced in v13, we'd need to backpatch that documentation change to v13?
As for total_vacuum_time, since it's new in v18, I'd like to apply
the proposed change there.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-06-17 16:32:11 | Reorder min/max_protocol_version descriptions in libpq documentation |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-06-17 05:46:28 | Re: Mention the default io_method? |