public inbox for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: maciek@sakrejda.org <maciek@sakrejda.org>
Cc: Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: doc: Clarify ANALYZE VERBOSE output
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2026 22:17:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKFQuwZUSetJvoXewwofTNP5dLfhg7S31NNJhZ=G+ZbOOCZ=ug@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHGQGwE2dC5aNBgV5AtpMMdZNpkGn1PAa9o=whi8_Wb3m3ruAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOzEurTpMTUEW8kHu-zKB0EBtuPfpvyoJ--8pxKe87p24BGrpg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOtHd0AY4LuM+-JqFyzs4mPHG8yeAwfP5yr2EZg21RVO0442BA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHGQGwE2dC5aNBgV5AtpMMdZNpkGn1PAa9o=whi8_Wb3m3ruAA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sunday, April 5, 2026, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 3:10 AM Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > It makes sense to align these, but I think the existing VACUUM wording
> > is not great. What do you think about something like the attached?
> > Basically, I changed both option descriptions to just be
> >
> >   Prints detailed progress for each table at <literal>INFO</literal>
> level.
> >
> > I think the idea of _progress_ is important to communicate here. The
> > word "report" suggests more detailed information, that comes in a
> > batch after the action is completed.
>
> Referring to it only as "progress" seems like a step backward, doesn't it?
> The VERBOSE option reports per-table activity details (e.g., pages to scan,
> buffer usage), not just progress.
>
> Since these details are shown for each table, they can also serve as
> progress
> indicators, but they're more than that.
>
> If that understanding is correct, the existing term "vacuum activity
> report"
> seems more appropriate to me. Thought?
>

How about something like:
“Enables sending an INFO message to the client (and server log) as each
table is processed.  This message contains: etc…”

And then let’s tell the user what info they are getting and what it means
(where necessary).

I concur being specific about when these messages arrive, and IMO where,
should be specified.  But losing the detail of “report” is not good; but
not sure why we are being vague so suggest we just go all-in on specificity.

David J.

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
  Cc: david.g.johnston@gmail.com, masao.fujii@gmail.com, maciek@sakrejda.org, shinya11.kato@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: doc: Clarify ANALYZE VERBOSE output
  In-Reply-To: <CAKFQuwZUSetJvoXewwofTNP5dLfhg7S31NNJhZ=G+ZbOOCZ=ug@mail.gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox