Re: "ccold" left by reindex concurrently are droppable?

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.