Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> Hm, but at least in some cases wouldn't it protect people from further
> damage? End user data damage ought to prevented at all costs IMO.
Well ... not directly. Disallowing you from accessing busted block A
doesn't in itself prevent the same thing from happening to block B.
The argument seems to be that checksum failure complaints might prompt
users to, say, replace a failing disk drive before it goes dead completely.
But I think there's a whole lot of wishful thinking in that, particularly
when it comes to the sort of low-information users who would actually
be affected by a change in the default checksum setting.
regards, tom lane