Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jdauP-0005iZ-PH for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 26 May 2020 14:50:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jdauO-0004JI-H9 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 26 May 2020 14:50:24 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jdauO-0004JB-Ag for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 26 May 2020 14:50:24 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jdauM-0006of-6W for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 26 May 2020 14:50:23 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 04QEoJ8f017908; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:50:19 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmV5IEtseWNoa292?= cc: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ZXIgRWlzZW50cmF1dA==?= , pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?B?UmVbMl06IA==?= In-reply-to: <1590501239.839686286@f437.i.mail.ru> References: <1590486572.205117372@f500.i.mail.ru> <1590501239.839686286@f437.i.mail.ru> Comments: In-reply-to =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmV5IEtseWNoa292?= message dated "Tue, 26 May 2020 16:53:59 +0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <17906.1590504619.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 10:50:19 -0400 Message-ID: <17907.1590504619@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk =3D?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmV5IEtseWNoa292?=3D writes: >> Did you by any chance upgrade the operating system on this server at >> some point? > It was installed from Centos 8.1 official iso, then=C2=A0was=C2=A0update= d right after installation. Well, there are two issues here: 1. How did you manage to get duplicate entries into the table? This suggests that the existing index is corrupt, else it should have detected the duplicate. Peter's question was leading towards one known way that indexes on text columns can become corrupt. 2. Is reindexdb handling the failure sanely? While I'd agree that this behavior isn't especially desirable, it's the price of using REINDEX CONCURRENTLY. On failure, you're expected to clean up manually by removing the leftover invalid index. Perhaps the documentation isn't clear enough about that, but I don't see a bug there. regards, tom lane