On 2025/06/07 0:13, Robert Treat wrote:
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,
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
