| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Date: | 2017-01-24 00:20:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yVpUjpfppnLf+7R2JxC+3H_2efe8RFtR72DW8e=PwLXA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> Sure, it might be easy, but we don't have it. Personally I think
>> checksums just aren't even ready for prime time. If we had:
>> - ability to switch on/off at runtime (early patches for that have IIRC
>> been posted)
>> - *builtin* tooling to check checksums for everything
>> - *builtin* tooling to compute checksums after changing setting
>> - configurable background sweeps for checksums
>
> 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?".
> AFAIK there's no way to check or clear such an error; but without
> such tools, I'm afraid that checksums are as much of a foot-gun
> as a benefit.
I see your point here, but they sure saved my ass with that pl/sh
issue. So I'm inclined to lightly disagree; there are good arguments
either way.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-24 00:36:25 | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Previous Message | Jia Yu | 2017-01-24 00:19:22 | Re: IndexBuild Function call fcinfo cannot access memory |