| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Enable data checksums by default |
| Date: | 2025-07-30 12:09:47 |
| Message-ID: | E37A675A-ABB8-4D1C-821F-3CCD219C06A2@yesql.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 30 Jul 2025, at 11:58, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2025-07-29 at 20:24 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> So, what should we do with the PG18 open item? We (the RMT team) would
>> like to know if we shall keep the checksums enabled by default, and if
>> there's something that still needs to be done for PG18.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion, but I lean towards having them on
> by default.
I agree with that, while there might be a lot of cases where disabling
checksums is the right move it's still a sane default.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2025-07-30 12:33:27 | RE: 024_add_drop_pub.pl might fail due to deadlock |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2025-07-30 11:55:00 | Re: Support getrandom() for pg_strong_random() source |