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.
James