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
