On 2021-Jan-13, James Coleman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:05 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-Jan-13, James Coleman wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:33 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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)
