On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 7:17 AM Michael Paquier <michael@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.
