On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 10:54 AM Fujii Masao
<masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
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.
Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net
