Jeff Frost <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com> writes:
> Well, I spoke to soon on the it all works front. So, it's been
> reindexed and appears to be working properly now. I guess I'll keep
> an eye on it for a while. I didn't get your query suggestion in time,
> so hopefully I grabbed the right binary file..though it did seem to
> disappear after the reindex, so I think it's likely the correct one.
> Definitely got the correct second one.
Well, I can't find anything wrong :-(. There are some differences in
the list of contained keys, but they're all up near the end of the
range, which is consistent with the assumption that the table is live
and had some changes between your two dumps of the index. In
particular, there's no difference in the entries for the troublesome
key value:
38635629 24080 25
38635629 24080 26
38635629 24080 27
So I dunno what to make of it. If it happens again, we need to look
more closely.
regards, tom lane
