| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 03:49:42 |
| Message-ID: | 24876.1485229782@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
Well ... not directly. Disallowing you from accessing busted block A
doesn't in itself prevent the same thing from happening to block B.
The argument seems to be that checksum failure complaints might prompt
users to, say, replace a failing disk drive before it goes dead completely.
But I think there's a whole lot of wishful thinking in that, particularly
when it comes to the sort of low-information users who would actually
be affected by a change in the default checksum setting.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-01-24 03:52:10 | Re: patch proposal |
| Previous Message | Peter van Hardenberg | 2017-01-24 03:42:56 | Re: GSoC 2017 |