On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)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!