On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> writes: >> I thought that checksums went in in part because we thought that there >> was some chance that they'd find bugs in Postgres. > > Not really. AFAICS the only point is to catch storage-system malfeasance. > > It's barely possible that checksumming would help detect cases where > we'd written data meant for block A into block B, but I don't rate > that as being significantly more probable than bugs in the checksum > code itself. Also, if that case did happen, the checksum code might > "detect" it in some sense, but it would be remarkably unhelpful at > identifying the actual cause.
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. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
