On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:29 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > 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.
It does mean the table being reindexed; the last phrase says "any table" meaning "any other table". James
