Обсуждение: Fix bug in VACUUM and ANALYZE docs

Hi,

Issue1:
VACUUM and ANALYZE docs explain that the parameter of BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT 
is optional as follows. But this is not true. The argument, size, is 
required for BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT. So the docs should be fixed this issue.
BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT [ size ]
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/sql-vacuum.html
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/sql-analyze.html

Issue2:
Sizes may also be specified as a string containing the numerical size 
followed by any one of the following memory units: kB (kilobytes), MB 
(megabytes), GB (gigabytes), or TB (terabytes).
VACUUM and ANALYZE docs explain that the argument of BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT 
accepts the units like kB (kilobytes), MB (megabytes), GB (gigabytes), 
or TB (terabytes). But it also actually accepts B(bytes) as an unit. So 
the docs should include "B(bytes)" as an unit that the argument of 
BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT can accept.

You can see the patch in the attached file.

Ryoga Yoshida

On 2023-09-19 17:59, Ryoga Yoshida wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Issue1:
> VACUUM and ANALYZE docs explain that the parameter of
> BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT is optional as follows. But this is not true. The
> argument, size, is required for BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT. So the docs should
> be fixed this issue.
> BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT [ size ]
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/sql-vacuum.html
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/sql-analyze.html
> 
> Issue2:
> Sizes may also be specified as a string containing the numerical size
> followed by any one of the following memory units: kB (kilobytes), MB
> (megabytes), GB (gigabytes), or TB (terabytes).
> VACUUM and ANALYZE docs explain that the argument of
> BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT accepts the units like kB (kilobytes), MB
> (megabytes), GB (gigabytes), or TB (terabytes). But it also actually
> accepts B(bytes) as an unit. So the docs should include "B(bytes)" as
> an unit that the argument of BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT can accept.
> 
> You can see the patch in the attached file.

Thanks for the patch.
You're right. It looks good to me.

-- 
Regards,
Shinya Kato
NTT DATA GROUP CORPORATION

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 09:43:15AM +0900, Shinya Kato wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
> You're right. It looks good to me.

Right, it feels like there has been a lot of copy-paste in this area
of the docs.  Applied down to 16.
--
Michael

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 13:39:02 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 09:43:15AM +0900, Shinya Kato wrote:

> > You're right. It looks good to me.  
> 
> Right, it feels like there has been a lot of copy-paste in this area
> of the docs.  Applied down to 16.

I signed up to review, but I think that perhaps commitfest
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/45/4574/
needs marking as applied and done?

Regards,

Karl <kop@karlpinc.com>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                 -- Robert A. Heinlein

On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 06:30:32PM -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> I signed up to review, but I think that perhaps commitfest
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/45/4574/
> needs marking as applied and done?

Indeed.  I did not notice that there was a CF entry for this one.
Closed it now.
--
Michael