On 2021-Jan-13, James Coleman wrote: > 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.
Ouch. The difference seems slight enough that it doesn't matter; is it ungrammatical? Either way I'm gonna close this CF entry now, finally. Thank you for your patience! -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile "I can't go to a restaurant and order food because I keep looking at the fonts on the menu. Five minutes later I realize that it's also talking about food" (Donald Knuth)
