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