* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-01-21 13:03:52 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > > On 2017-01-21 12:46:05 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > Do you run with all defaults in those environments? > > > > > > Irrelevant - changing requires re-initdb'ing. That's unrealistic. > > > > I disagree. Further, we can add an option to be able to disable > > checksums without needing to re-initdb pretty trivially, which addresses > > the case where someone's having a problem because it's enabled, as > > discussed. > > Sure, it might be easy, but we don't have it. Personally I think > checksums just aren't even ready for prime time. If we had: > - ability to switch on/off at runtime (early patches for that have IIRC > been posted) > - *builtin* tooling to check checksums for everything > - *builtin* tooling to compute checksums after changing setting > - configurable background sweeps for checksums
I'm certainly all for adding, well, all of that. I don't think we need *all* of it before considering enabling checksums by default, but I do think it'd be great if we had people working on adding those. > then the story would look differently. Right now checksums just aren't > particularly useful due to not having the above. Just checking recent > data doesn't really guarantee much - failures are more likely in old > data, and the data might even be read from ram. I agree that failures tend to be more likely in old data, though, as with everything, "it depends." Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature