Re: Checksums by default?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, 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: 2017-01-24 06:53:05
Message-ID: 20170124065305.j7rqku72ndesapxp@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-01-23 21:11:37 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> End user data damage ought to prevented at all costs IMO.

Really, really, really not. We should do a lot, but if that'd be the
only priority we'd enable all the expensive as shit stuff and be so slow
that there'd be no users. We'd never add new scalability/performance
features, because they'll initially have more bugs / increase
complexity. Etc.

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-01-24 06:58:48 Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-01-24 06:50:47 Re: WIP: About CMake v2