Re: Checksums by default?

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> As for checksums, I do see value in them and I'm pretty sure that the
> author of that particular feature did as well, or we wouldn't even have
> it as an option. You seem to be of the opinion that we might as well
> just rip all of that code and work out as being useless.

Not at all; I just think that it's not clear that they are a net win
for the average user, and so I'm unconvinced that turning them on by
default is a good idea. I could be convinced otherwise by suitable
evidence. What I'm objecting to is turning them on without making
any effort to collect such evidence.

Also, if we do decide to do that, there's the question of timing.
As I mentioned, one of the chief risks I see is the possibility of
false-positive checksum failures due to bugs; I think that code has seen
sufficiently little field use that we should have little confidence that
no such bugs remain. So if we're gonna do it, I'd prefer to do it at the
very start of a devel cycle, so as to have the greatest opportunity to
find bugs before we ship the new default.

regards, tom lane