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

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