Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, that seems utterly unsafe to me. We'd have a corrupt index and
>> nothing to cause it to get repaired.
> We do exactly this with GIN and GIST indexes currently.
Which are not used in any system indexes.
> I'd rather have a database that works, but has a corrupt index than one
> that won't come up at all.
If the btree in question is a critical system index, your value of
"work" is going to be pretty damn small.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2009-01-08 19:31:13|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2009-01-08 19:15:45|
|Subject: Re: PANIC: failed to re-find parent key in "100924" forsplit pages 1606/1673|