Horton

Re: Clarify VACUUM FULL exclusion in total_vacuum_time docs

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
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>
Date: 2025-07-14T16:51:30Z
Lists: pgsql-docs

Attachments


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

Commits

  1. doc: Clarify that total_vacuum_time excludes VACUUM FULL.