On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:58 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:51:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I looked into this again, and I didn't like what I had added to > > maintenance.sgml at all. It seems out of place where I put it; and I > > couldn't find any great spots. Going back to your original proposal, > > what about something like this? It's just one more para in the "notes" > > section in CREATE INDEX and REINDEX pages, without any additions to the > > VACUUM pages. > > +1.
I think one more para in the notes is good. But shouldn't we still clarify the issue is specific to CONCURRENTLY? Also that it's not just the table being indexed seems fairly significant. How about something like: --- Like any long-running transaction, <command>REINDEX CONCURRENTLY</command> can affect which tuples can be removed by concurrent <command>VACUUM</command> on any table. --- James
