On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 7:17 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > 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.
+1, that's an improvement and should be backpatched. > > > (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. Agreed.
