agora inbox for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
To: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Clarify VACUUM FULL exclusion in total_vacuum_time docs
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 11:28:28 +0900
Message-ID: <f58eb77f-0d8f-4f58-bed2-a100bd7e0814@oss.nttdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABV9wwMs4g9nq-fKy=fFqU-rQUf6fiCqJg4_+MkqOnJE1n2TBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2ac375d1-591b-4f1b-a2af-f24335567866@oss.nttdata.com>
	<CAKFQuwYgErraNuAUme-6dSwmwNSSStC8SL7560Qy2sAtUG5J+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABV9wwMs4g9nq-fKy=fFqU-rQUf6fiCqJg4_+MkqOnJE1n2TBA@mail.gmail.com>



On 2025/06/07 0:13, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 9:57 AM David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, June 6, 2025, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Since last_vacuum and vacuum_count in pg_stat_all_tables explicitly mention
>>> that they don't include VACUUM FULL ("not counting VACUUM FULL"), I think
>>> we should add the same clarification to the description of total_vacuum_time.
>>> This field also excludes VACUUM FULL, and without this note, users might
>>> mistakenly think the time spent on VACUUM FULL is included. Thought?
>>>
>>>          <structfield>total_vacuum_time</structfield> <type>double precision</type>
>>>         </para>
>>>         <para>
>>> -       Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds.
>>> +       Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds
>>> +       (not counting <command>VACUUM FULL</command>).
>>>          (This includes the time spent sleeping due to cost-based delays.)
>>>         </para></entry>
>>>        </row>
>>
>>
>>   Makes sense.  Our naming this table rewrite vacuum full does confuse people into thinking it is related to vacuum.
>>
> 
> +1 for this change,

Thanks both for the review!


> but I think we should also update
> n_ins_since_vacuum as well, no?

I didn't update n_ins_since_vacuum since it's mainly used by autovacuum rather
than end users, and there haven't been any complaints about the current
description so far. That said, I don't have a strong opinion either way,
so I'm fine with making the change if others think it's worthwhile.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation

view thread (12+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <f58eb77f-0d8f-4f58-bed2-a100bd7e0814@oss.nttdata.com>
Permalink:  ../f58eb77f-0d8f-4f58-bed2-a100bd7e0814@oss.nttdata.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/f58eb77f-0d8f-4f58-bed2-a100bd7e0814@oss.nttdata.com

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
  Cc: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, rob@xzilla.net, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Clarify VACUUM FULL exclusion in total_vacuum_time docs
  In-Reply-To: <f58eb77f-0d8f-4f58-bed2-a100bd7e0814@oss.nttdata.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox