MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAOzEurTpMTUEW8kHu-zKB0EBtuPfpvyoJ--8pxKe87p24BGrpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOVWO5ov8_JR5Tj2J6cXPZF9cPM3P4w3yhVM9=NeiDMqY3t_PA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOVWO5ov8_JR5Tj2J6cXPZF9cPM3P4w3yhVM9=NeiDMqY3t_PA@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: maciek@sakrejda.org
From: Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 13:12:55 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAOtHd0CEvKrPnOx6_nv--R5sRwg47QqbrQG6P_2D0QQwxO9rcg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: doc: Clarify ANALYZE VERBOSE output
To: surya poondla <suryapoondla4@gmail.com>
Cc: Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@gmail.com>, 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/CAOtHd0CEvKrPnOx6_nv--R5sRwg47QqbrQG6P_2D0QQwxO9rcg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 4:26=E2=80=AFPM surya poondla <suryapoondla4@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
> On the wording debate: I think David and Maciek are both pointing at
> the same real issue, the description should convey (a) "what kind of
> information" users will see, and (b) "when" they'll see it.
>
> Given that, I'd suggest leaning toward something like:
> "Sends a detailed INFO message to the client for each table as it is proc=
essed."
>
> I feel with the above message we balance, the server's perspective ("send=
s" rather than "prints"), and conveys timing ("after each table is processe=
d").

I agree with the analysis, and I think the proposed wording works well.

> This same phrasing could work for both VACUUM and ANALYZE VERBOSE, keepin=
g them consistent.

+1 for consistency.