From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 17:22:51 |
Message-ID: | 20170121172250.GM18360@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> 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.
Oh. I like that idea, a lot.
+1.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-21 17:23:54 | Re: Checksums by default? |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-21 17:22:28 | Re: Checksums by default? |