Re: Index (primary key) corrupt?

From: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Wim Rouquart <wim(dot)rouquart(at)kbc(dot)be>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Index (primary key) corrupt?
Date: 2026-03-09 19:52:59
Message-ID: 2016a784-0644-4932-a0f1-3613c2521c78@aklaver.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 3/9/26 10:53 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 11:37 AM Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
> <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> This post in answer:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/
> AS2PR05MB107549DDE42DC0B8E31CB52BFEF90A%40AS2PR05MB10754.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AS2PR05MB107549DDE42DC0B8E31CB52BFEF90A%40AS2PR05MB10754.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
>
> would seem to indicate that is not the issue.
>
>
> Ah, but those are doing the lookup by the index (via indexrelid) but I
> am curious about looking up by the table (indrelid), as that is how
> pg_dump is going to get at it.

Yeah, but the indrelid did not change after the the REINDEX.

I guess one could question the cast in:

indrelid = 'bcf_work_type'::regclass

Though I am not sure how a REINDEX would affect that?

> Cheers,
> Greg
>
>

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pierre Forstmann 2026-03-09 20:21:44 LISTAGG à la Oracle in PostgreSQL
Previous Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2026-03-09 17:53:39 Re: Index (primary key) corrupt?