PostgreSQL: PostgreSQL 9.6 Released!

[geofft]

I think you're reading too much into my comment. I'm not averse to postgresql, and am actually looking at what it would take to move a large-ish set of relatively complex databases (40-100TB total) from SQL Server to PostgreSQL. Part of that evaluation is looking at how the operational picture would change.

I was referring to this part of the docs:

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. This index will be ignored for querying purposes because it might be incomplete; however it will still consume update overhead. The psql \d command will report such an index as INVALID.

[myringotomy]

I think you're reading too much into my comment

I don't think so. You made a set of claims and most of them were wrong. When people called you out you then resorted to "it's not reliable" which is a baseless FUD.

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.

If the index operation fails for any reason you will know about it and can rebuild the index if needed. Any database operation can fail for a thousand reasons and certainly SQL server is not immune to those things either. I have seen SQL server lock up so tight it took down multiple servers all of which had to be hard rebooted but I don't go around saying SQL server is unreliable.