| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, David Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other |
| Date: | 2021-01-13 21:29:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1337019.1610573371@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Coleman | 2021-01-13 21:48:37 | Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-01-13 21:24:23 | Re: Executing inet_server_addr/port() in parallel workers |