Re: Corrupt RTREE index

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> I wonder if it's actually corrupt, or if it's just that the index
> semantics don't truly match the operator.  If the latter, REINDEXing
> won't fix it.

I think the index always worked properly in the past. But of course it would
be hard to tell if that was really true.

> As for the first theory, have you had any database crashes lately?
> If so I'd write this off as a failure caused by the lack of WAL-logging
> support in rtree.

Ugh. I have had a couple system crashes recently. I kind of doubt the index
was in the process of being written to, I don't tend to watch Farscape at the
same time as doing development work... But I can't guarantee it.

So you don't think this case is worth doing forensics on?


> I didn't think @ was broken ... but I might have missed something.

I didn't think @ was broken either.


--
greg