Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match