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)