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: 2025-06-17T14:54:48Z
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

Commits

  1. doc: Clarify that total_vacuum_time excludes VACUUM FULL.