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
