| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Date: | 2017-01-21 17:16:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20170121171607.k5nk3cgfrj43plt3@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-21 17:22:28 | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-21 17:15:20 | Re: Checksums by default? |