Re: Index (primary key) corrupt? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Adrian Klaver
Subject Re: Index (primary key) corrupt?
Date
Msg-id 7d455186-0cba-4fd5-9f9e-7051627b3ae3@aklaver.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Index (primary key) corrupt?  (Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Index (primary key) corrupt?
List pgsql-general
On 3/9/26 8:24 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 10:12 AM Wim Rouquart <wim.rouquart@kbc.be 
> <mailto:wim.rouquart@kbc.be>> wrote:
> 
>     I already saw finding the actual cause as a 'lost cause' as these
>     things tend to happen, however what bothers me most is that a tool
>     like amcheck which is supposed to find corruption also shows up with
>     no result.
> 
> 
> Well, no, these things really should not happen. :)
> 
> It may be too late, but it would be real interesting to see this query 
> both before and after the REINDEX:
> 
> select * from pg_index where indrelid  = 'bcf_work_type'::regclass and 
> indisprimary;

Déjà vu :)

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKAnmmK9uKAcerhseNg6FSDOnMWmivM5ctUiTAdc1kobq94Dqw%40mail.gmail.com

This post in answer:


https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AS2PR05MB107549DDE42DC0B8E31CB52BFEF90A%40AS2PR05MB10754.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com

would seem to indicate that is not the issue.

> 
> An incorrect indrelid is one way I can think of as to how pg_dump would 
> miss it, but that wouldn't explain why reindex would subsequently fix it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Greg
> 


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Greg Sabino Mullane
Date:
Subject: Re: Index (primary key) corrupt?
Next
From: Shaheed Haque
Date:
Subject: Re: Unexpected deadlock across two separate rows, using Postgres 17 and Django's select_for_update()