Ah no it is not. Something else was changed at the same time. Sigh. Thanks for clarifying David
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 10:42 AM Stefan Knecht <knecht.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > But that "invalid" index is being used by queries.... > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 10:41 AM David G. Johnston < > david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 8:37 PM Stefan Knecht <knecht.ste...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello >>> >>> Why does this happen? >>> >>> profile_aggregates=> create index concurrently foo_idx on agg (status, >>> foots, created_ts); >>> >>> >>> ^CCancel request sent >>> ERROR: canceling statement due to user request >>> profile_aggregates=> >>> profile_aggregates=> create index concurrently foo_idx on agg (status, >>> foots, created_ts); >>> ERROR: relation " foo_idx" already exists >>> >>> Are these operations not atomic ? >>> >>> >> No, being atomic would interfere with doing things concurrently. Per the >> docs: >> >> In a concurrent index build, the index is actually entered as an >> “invalid” index into the system catalogs in one transaction, then two table >> scans occur in two more transactions. >> ... >> If a problem arises while scanning the table, such as a deadlock or a >> uniqueness violation in a unique index, the CREATE INDEX command will fail >> but leave behind an “invalid” index. >> >> "Problem" includes you forcibly killing it while it is running. >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createindex.html >> >> David J. >> >>
