On 2025/07/15 23:27, Robert Treat wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 1:44 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 01:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2025/06/18 6:53, Robert Treat wrote:
I think the more cases where you document this behavior (and I do like
the idea of documenting it for
On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 10:27 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On the other hand, reading the VACUUM reference page, I get the
> > feeling that the new syntax with parentheses should be favored.
> > After all, the old syntax doesn't support any of the recently
> > added options and restricts the option o
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 1:44 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 01:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >
> > On 2025/06/18 6:53, Robert Treat wrote:
> > > I think the more cases where you document this behavior (and I do like
> > > the idea of documenting it for total_vacuum_time), the mo
On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 01:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On 2025/06/18 6:53, Robert Treat wrote:
> > I think the more cases where you document this behavior (and I do like
> > the idea of documenting it for total_vacuum_time), the more one is
> > likely to think that places where it is not docume
On 2025/06/18 6:53, Robert Treat wrote:
I think the more cases where you document this behavior (and I do like
the idea of documenting it for total_vacuum_time), the more one is
likely to think that places where it is not documented operate
differently. To that end, I think documenting it for
n
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 10:54 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> 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
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
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:28 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> On 2025/06/07 0:13, Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 9:57 AM David G. Johnston
> > wrote:
> >> On Friday, June 6, 2025, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Since last_vacuum and vacuum_count in pg_stat_all_tables expl
On 2025/06/07 0:13, Robert Treat wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 9:57 AM David G. Johnston
wrote:
On Friday, June 6, 2025, Fujii Masao 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
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 9:57 AM David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Friday, June 6, 2025, Fujii Masao 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
On Friday, June 6, 2025, Fujii Masao 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 fi
11 matches
Mail list logo
