On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:07:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> writes:
> > I think, the next step in that direction would be to enable data
> > checksums by default. They make sense in most setups,
>
> Well, that is exactly the point that needs some proof, not just
> an unfounded assertion.
>
> IMO, the main value of checksums is that they allow the Postgres
> project to deflect blame. That's nice for us but I'm not sure
> that it's a benefit for users. I've seen little if any data to
> suggest that checksums actually catch enough problems to justify
> the extra CPU costs and the risk of false positives.
Enabling checksums by default will require anyone using pg_upgrade to
run initdb to disable checksums before running pg_upgrade, for one
release. We could add checksums for non-link pg_upgrade runs, but we
don't have code to do that yet, and most people use link anyway.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +