Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other

From: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, 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 21:48:37
Message-ID: CAAaqYe_gm=JFna+BACJhY49UWef2pNRLfQ+GV7AqyLVcWdtT6Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:29 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> 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.

It does mean the table being reindexed; the last phrase says "any
table" meaning "any other table".

James

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-01-13 22:00:28 Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-01-13 21:29:31 Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other