To: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@it-management.at>
cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: duplicate primary index in bayes db from SpamAssassin 
In-reply-to: <200805071103.53981@zmi.at> 
References: <200804141757.21574@zmi.at> <20473.1208446891@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<21948.1209587149@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200805071103.53981@zmi.at>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@it-management.at>
	message dated "Wed, 07 May 2008 11:03:53 +0200"
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 10:32:54 -0400
Message-ID: <6626.1210170774@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@it-management.at> writes:
> So probably this is this kind of "should never ever happen" except your 
> machine goes bye-bye badly. What makes me a bit worried is that pg_dump 
> did not report an error at all, but made it's backup as if everything 
> is OK. Could that be changed maybe so that in case of a problem it at 
> least cries out loudly "broken db found" or so?

pg_dump intentionally does *not* look at the contents of indexes (at
least not any on user tables).  I think this is a good thing because
it makes it more likely that you can dump a damaged database.  pg_dump
is not supposed to be some kind of fsck-like tool.

			regards, tom lane