On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:13:12PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > In other words I propose to reword this paragraph as follows: > > If the transient index created during the concurrent operation is > suffixed <literal>ccnew</literal>, the recommended recovery method > is to drop the invalid index using <literal>DROP INDEX</literal>, > and try to perform <command>REINDEX CONCURRENTLY</command> again. > If the transient index is instead suffixed <literal>ccold</literal>, > it corresponds to the original index which we failed to drop; > the recommended recovery method is to just drop said index, since the > rebuild proper has been successful.
Yes, that's an improvement. It would be better to backpatch that. So +1 from me. > (The original talks about "the concurrent index", which seems somewhat > sloppy thinking. I used the term "transient index" instead.) Using transient to refer to an index aimed at being ephemeral sounds fine to me in this context. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
