Re: Checksums by default?

Michael,

* Michael Paquier (michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> That would be enough. It should also be rare enough that there would
> not be that many pages to track when looking at records from the
> backup start position to minimum recovery point. It could be also
> simpler, though more time-consuming, to just let a backup recover up
> to the minimum recovery point (recovery_target = 'immediate'), and
> then run the checksum sanity checks. There are other checks usually
> needed on a backup anyway like being sure that index pages are in good
> shape even with a correct checksum, etc.

Belive me, I'm all for *all* of that.

> But here I am really high-jacking the thread, so I'll stop..

If you have further thoughts, I'm all ears. This is all relatively new,
and I don't expect to have all of the answer or solutions.

Obviously, having to bring up a full database is an extra step (one we
try to make easy to do), but, sadly, we don't have any way to ask PG to
verify all the checksums with released versions, so that's what we're
working with.

Thanks!

Stephen