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
Laurenz Albe writes:
> This thread doesn't look like we're going to find a wording that will
> make everyone happy, but I believe that this patch is a clear improvement.
Pushed with the "command message" wording. Thanks for the discussion!
regards, tom lane
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
