On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
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.
Well, it's been working wonderfully since the REINDEX, so I don't know what to
say. Any idea if having a too small max_fsm_pages could hose an index,
because I know that happened not too long before we started seeing this
problem. The fsm settings were increased prior to the problem occurring, but
it's possible the index was already damaged?
--
Jeff Frost, Owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
