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