| From: | "Burd, Greg" <greg(at)burd(dot)me> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, 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>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Enable data checksums by default |
| Date: | 2025-07-31 22:39:51 |
| Message-ID: | FC563FAB-91A9-4C0F-BAB6-AD1E6061AC2F@burd.me |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jul 31, 2025, at 3:21 PM, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2025-07-31 at 09:39 -0400, Greg Burd wrote:
>> I agree that enabling checksums by default is the sane default. Databases
>> should always make a best effort for data integrity, checksums are a
>> positive step in that direction.
>
> Having checksums on does not improve data integrity...
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
Hello, thanks for your reply. I agree they don't improve integrity, but they
do improve the ability to detect loss of integrity (corruption), which is a
good thing for databases to do by default. Apologies, my phrasing could have
been better.
best.
-greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Burd, Greg | 2025-07-31 22:41:47 | Re: Enable data checksums by default |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2025-07-31 22:10:30 | Re: Enable data checksums by default |