On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:29 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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
