| From: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | 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 21:08:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAAaqYe9-PCuvq=0C39E5UqLHpVShc8tL5nBrB_sXJDgUCVDe=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:05 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2021-Jan-13, James Coleman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:33 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-01-13 21:14:25 | Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-01-13 21:05:37 | Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other |