On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
bricklen <bricklen@gmail.com> writes: > Yes, it is definitely a table. There was originally an index on that table > which threw the original error (about sibling mismatch). I dropped the > index and attempted to recreate it, which failed. Further investigation led > to discovery of corruption in the table.
Hm. There's still something weird about this though. Maybe there is no data at all between pages 1226710 and 690651? Might be worth doing some poking around with contrib/pageinspect/.
