Re: Checksums by default?

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

Tom Lane points out:
> Yeah, and there's a bunch of usability tooling that we don't have,
> centered around "what do you do after you get a checksum error?".

I've asked myself this as well, and came up with a proof of conecpt
repair tool called pg_healer:

http://blog.endpoint.com/2016/09/pghealer-repairing-postgres-problems.html

It's very rough, but my vision is that someday Postgres will
have a background process akin to autovacuum that constantly
sniffs out corruption problems and (optionally) repairs them.
The ability to self-repair is very limited unless checksums are
enabled.

I agree that there is work needed and problems to be solved
with our checksum implementation (e.g. what if cosmic ray
hits the checksum itself!?), but I would love to see what we do have
enabled by default so we dramatically increase the pool of people
with checksums enabled.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201701211522
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAliDw5oACgkQvJuQZxSWSshy4QCfXokvagoishfTUnmujjpBNTUT
q7IAn0dR74bFy0mj0EMoTU7Taj0db3Sh
=qBEJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----