| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, BGoebel <b(dot)goebel(at)prisma-computer(dot)de>, pgsql-general General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Using of --data-checksums |
| Date: | 2020-04-12 14:23:24 |
| Message-ID: | 13634.1586701404@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> And FWIW, I do think we should change the default. And maybe spend some
> extra effort on the message coming out of pg_upgrade in this case to make
> it clear to people what their options are and exactly what to do.
Is there any hard evidence of checksums catching problems at all?
Let alone in sufficient number to make them be on-by-default?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-04-12 20:09:29 | Re: Which commands are guaranteed to drop role |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-04-12 11:38:21 | Re: Using of --data-checksums |