On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 11:58:18AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> I started writing this patch to avoid the possibly-misleading phrase: "with >> no >> extra space" (since it's expected to typically take ~2x space, or 1x "extra" >> space). >> >> But the original phrase "with no extra space" seems to be wrong anyway, since >> it actually follows fillfactor, so say that. Possibly should be backpatched. > > Patch applies and compiles. > > Given that the paragraph begins with "Plain VACUUM (without FULL)", it is > better to have the VACUUM FULL explanations on a separate paragraph, and the
The original patch does that (Fabien agreed when I asked off list)
