Re: scary patch contest

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 10:29:36AM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 3. Online data checksums (f19c0eccae9, Daniel Gustafsson and Magnus
> > Hagander): ~25 substantive fixes, mostly state-machine holes — invalid
> > transitions in checkpoints and promotion, initial state missing from
> > the control file, basebackup false checksum failures, wrong WAL for
> > unlogged relations. A corruption-detection feature producing false
> > positives is exactly the wrong failure mode.
>
> I'm not *too* concerned about this one. In contrast to most of the other
> features here it's a super user only feature that you're not going to use
> continuously. If it turns out to be too problematic, disabling it is a few
> lines.

I was thinking that too. Would the worst case be that people will have
to disable and re-enable checksums again. Is that something we could
actually give people a workflow for?

Seeing anything removed from the major release note will feel painful,
but perhaps necessary.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.