Re: Checksums by default?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

tl;dr +1 from me for changing the default, it is worth it.

Tom Lane wrote:
> Have we seen *even one* report of checksums catching
> problems in a usefuld way?

Sort of chicken-and-egg, as most places don't have it enabled.
Which leads us to:

Stephen Frost replies:
> This isn't the right question.
>
> The right question is "have we seen reports of corruption which
> checksums *would* have caught?"

Well, I've seen corruption that almost certainly would have got caught
much earlier than stumbling upon it later on when the corruption
happened to finally trigger an error. I don't normally report such
things to the list: it's almost always a hardware bug or bad RAM. I
would only post if it were caused by a Postgres bug.

Tom Lane wrote:
> I think this will be making the average user pay X% for nothing.

I think you mean "the average user who doesn't check what initdb
options are available". And we can certainly post a big notice about
this in the release notes, so people can use the initdb option
- --disable-data-checksums if they want.

> ... pay X% for nothing.

It is not for nothing, it is for increasing reliability by detecting
(and pinpointing!) corruption as early as possible.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201701211513
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAliDwU4ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsi06QCgpPUg4SljERHMWP9tTJnoIRic
U2cAoLZINh2rSECNYOwjldlD4dK00FiV
=pYQ/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----