On 2017-01-21 12:09:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Also, if we do decide to do that, there's the question of timing. > As I mentioned, one of the chief risks I see is the possibility of > false-positive checksum failures due to bugs; I think that code has seen > sufficiently little field use that we should have little confidence that > no such bugs remain. So if we're gonna do it, I'd prefer to do it at the > very start of a devel cycle, so as to have the greatest opportunity to > find bugs before we ship the new default.
What wouldn't hurt is enabling it by default in pg_regress on master for a while. That seems like a good thing to do independent of flipping the default. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
