On 07/12/2017 09:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> rihad <rihad(at)mail(dot)ru> writes:
>> On 07/12/2017 01:54 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>>> As you see, your index is still sorted according to the C collation
>>> and scanning it returns wrong results.
>> This ordering issue can certainly be classified as an inconsistency, but
>> nothing to lose sleep over. Is this all that is normally meant when
>> saying "index corruption"?
> Laurenz neglected to point out that if the index isn't sorted the way that
> the system assumes it is, then searches may fail to find values that are
> present (due to descending into the wrong subtree), and by the same token
> insertions may fail to enforce uniqueness. That's pretty corrupt in
> my book.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Wow. It sure is.