On 2025/06/07 0:13, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 9:57 AM David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, June 6, 2025, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Since last_vacuum and vacuum_count in pg_stat_all_tables explicitly mention
>>> that they don't include VACUUM FULL ("not counting VACUUM FULL"), I think
>>> we should add the same clarification to the description of total_vacuum_time.
>>> This field also excludes VACUUM FULL, and without this note, users might
>>> mistakenly think the time spent on VACUUM FULL is included. Thought?
>>>
>>> <structfield>total_vacuum_time</structfield> <type>double precision</type>
>>> </para>
>>> <para>
>>> - Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds.
>>> + Total time this table has been manually vacuumed, in milliseconds
>>> + (not counting <command>VACUUM FULL</command>).
>>> (This includes the time spent sleeping due to cost-based delays.)
>>> </para></entry>
>>> </row>
>>
>>
>> Makes sense. Our naming this table rewrite vacuum full does confuse people into thinking it is related to vacuum.
>>
>
> +1 for this change,
Thanks both for the review!
> but I think we should also update
> n_ins_since_vacuum as well, no?
I didn't update n_ins_since_vacuum since it's mainly used by autovacuum rather
than end users, and there haven't been any complaints about the current
description so far. That said, I don't have a strong opinion either way,
so I'm fine with making the change if others think it's worthwhile.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
