On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:05 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2021-Jan-13, James Coleman wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:33 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > > wrote: > > > > This is true. So I propose > > > > > > Like any long-running transaction, <command>REINDEX</command> can > > > affect which tuples can be removed by concurrent > > > <command>VACUUM</command> > > > on any table. > > > > That sounds good to me. > > Great, pushed with one more wording tweak: "REINDEX on any table can > affect ... on any other table". To pg12 and up.
Looks like what got committed is "REINDEX on a table" not "on any", but I'm not sure that matters too much. James
