MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAOzEurTpMTUEW8kHu-zKB0EBtuPfpvyoJ--8pxKe87p24BGrpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOtHd0AY4LuM+-JqFyzs4mPHG8yeAwfP5yr2EZg21RVO0442BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwE2dC5aNBgV5AtpMMdZNpkGn1PAa9o=whi8_Wb3m3ruAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwZUSetJvoXewwofTNP5dLfhg7S31NNJhZ=G+ZbOOCZ=ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOzEurS7aNO=TnZztwnxJdLgmNnmotwcocxVR2s4qLrZ66ZkxQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOzEurS7aNO=TnZztwnxJdLgmNnmotwcocxVR2s4qLrZ66ZkxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: maciek@sakrejda.org
From: Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 14:26:23 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAOtHd0AC7Yg-Fz+1uRHc=mqsVtpH6b5NM-uL_Chd2vwKT5jf7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: doc: Clarify ANALYZE VERBOSE output
To: Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@gmail.com>
Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
 Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
	maciek@sakrejda.org, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOtHd0AC7Yg-Fz%2B1uRHc%3DmqsVtpH6b5NM-uL_Chd2vwKT5jf7g%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 6:57=E2=80=AFPM Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@gmail.com=
> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2026, 14:17 David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
>>
>> How about something like:
>> =E2=80=9CEnables sending an INFO message to the client (and server log) =
as each table is processed.  This message contains: etc=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D
>>
>> And then let=E2=80=99s 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 =E2=80=9Creport=E2=80=9D is=
 not good; but not sure why we are being vague so suggest we just go all-in=
 on specificity.
>
> Thank you for the suggestion. I'd prefer to keep this patch focused; sinc=
e the verbose output of both commands is subject to change, listing every i=
ndividual field in the documentation would require frequent updates.
>
> I believe the current "Outputs" section is intentionally kept simple to m=
inimize maintenance overhead. While expanding it might be a worthwhile foll=
ow-up, it probably deserves its own dedicated discussion.

+1, listing output details is signing up for busywork. But I do like
the  =E2=80=9Cas each table is processed" wording: it's clear on when you'l=
l
see output. Given the feedback above (that just using the word
"progress" obscures that you'll see actual stats), maybe something
along these lines:

"Prints detailed stats at <literal>INFO</literal> level for each table
as it is processed."

? I still think "report" is the wrong term for something that happens
incrementally.

I don't feel strongly about this, though: if everyone is okay with
consolidating on the existing VACUUM wording, that's still better than
inconsistency.

Thanks,
Maciek