On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:19:18PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 13:36, Bharath Rupireddy > <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > + <para> > > + Each backend running <command>VACUUM</command> without the > > + <literal>FULL</literal> option will report its progress in the > > + <structname>pg_stat_progress_vacuum</structname> view. Backends running > > + <command>VACUUM</command> with the <literal>FULL</literal> option > > report > > + progress in the <structname>pg_stat_progress_cluster</structname> view > > + instead. See <xref linkend="vacuum-progress-reporting"/> and > > + <xref linkend="cluster-progress-reporting"/> for details. > > + </para> > > > > I think a typo, missing "will" between option and report - it's "with > > the <literal>FULL</literal> option will report" > > "Backends running [...] report progress to [...] instead" is, > a.f.a.i.k., correct English. Adding 'will' would indeed still be > correct, but it would in my opinion also be decremental to the > readability of the section due to the repeated use of the same > template sentence structure. I think that keeping it as-is is just > fine.
I'd prefer to see the same thing repeated, since then it's easy to compare, for readers, and also future doc authors. That's normal in technical documentation to have redundancy. It's easy to read. I'd suggest to move "instead" into the middle of the sentence, and combine VACUUM+FULL, and add "their": > > + ... Backends running <command>VACUUM FULL</literal> will instead report > > + their progress in the > > <structname>pg_stat_progress_cluster</structname> view. -- Justin
