On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> bricklen <brick...@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/. > > Ah, good idea. Thanks again!
