Re: doc: Clarify ANALYZE VERBOSE output
David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
From: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: "maciek@sakrejda.org" <maciek@sakrejda.org>,
Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@gmail.com>, "pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-04-06T05:17:14Z
Lists: pgsql-docs
On Sunday, April 5, 2026, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 3:10 AM Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > It makes sense to align these, but I think the existing VACUUM wording > > is not great. What do you think about something like the attached? > > Basically, I changed both option descriptions to just be > > > > Prints detailed progress for each table at <literal>INFO</literal> > level. > > > > I think the idea of _progress_ is important to communicate here. The > > word "report" suggests more detailed information, that comes in a > > batch after the action is completed. > > Referring to it only as "progress" seems like a step backward, doesn't it? > The VERBOSE option reports per-table activity details (e.g., pages to scan, > buffer usage), not just progress. > > Since these details are shown for each table, they can also serve as > progress > indicators, but they're more than that. > > If that understanding is correct, the existing term "vacuum activity > report" > seems more appropriate to me. Thought? > How about something like: “Enables sending an INFO message to the client (and server log) as each table is processed. This message contains: etc…” And then let’s tell the user what info they are getting and what it means (where necessary). I concur being specific about when these messages arrive, and IMO where, should be specified. But losing the detail of “report” is not good; but not sure why we are being vague so suggest we just go all-in on specificity. David J.