Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2021-Jan-13, James Coleman 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.
>> 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?
I'd personally have written "on other tables" or "on another table",
or left out that clause altogether and just said "concurrent
<command>VACUUM</command>". I'm not sure it's ungrammatical exactly,
but the antecedent of "a table" is a bit unclear; people might
wonder if it means the table being reindexed.
regards, tom lane
