On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 9:57 AM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 6, 2025, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@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, but I think we should also update
n_ins_since_vacuum as well, no?
Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net
