From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: "ccold" left by reindex concurrently are droppable? |
Date: | 2020-08-20 08:18:07 |
Message-ID: | CAOBaU_YJzDwXmhKTGyoGtNQbmDLiEuNERQ-WGdRhZ38Gu5N0VQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 7:17 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-08-20 08:32:24 | Re: Refactor pg_rewind code and make it work against a standby |
Previous Message | Georgios | 2020-08-20 08:16:19 | Re: Include access method in listTables output |