Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:16:04 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	David Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Subject: Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other
Message-ID: <20210113211604.GA16584@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAaqYe9-PCuvq=0C39E5UqLHpVShc8tL5nBrB_sXJDgUCVDe=A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

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)