Message-ID: <bb97b8d4-2f44-4b95-9b82-a54ecbce9e76@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:54:48 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Clarify VACUUM FULL exclusion in total_vacuum_time docs
Content-Language: en-US
To: Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <2ac375d1-591b-4f1b-a2af-f24335567866@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CAKFQuwYgErraNuAUme-6dSwmwNSSStC8SL7560Qy2sAtUG5J+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABV9wwMs4g9nq-fKy=fFqU-rQUf6fiCqJg4_+MkqOnJE1n2TBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <f58eb77f-0d8f-4f58-bed2-a100bd7e0814@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CAJSLCQ3YPKaB7tQDyg8BbVuo80EGn_j6kycNGG3oZB59P8tgrg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJSLCQ3YPKaB7tQDyg8BbVuo80EGn_j6kycNGG3oZB59P8tgrg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/bb97b8d4-2f44-4b95-9b82-a54ecbce9e76%40oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk


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