From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
Date: | 2017-01-21 16:35:17 |
Message-ID: | 28454.1485016517@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> Have we seen *even one* report of checksums catching problems in a useful
>> way?
> This isn't the right question.
I disagree. If they aren't doing something useful for people who have
turned them on, what's the reason to think they'd do something useful
for the rest?
> The right question is "have we seen reports of corruption which
> checksums *would* have caught?"
Sure, that's also a useful question, one which hasn't been answered.
A third useful question is "have we seen any reports of false-positive
checksum failures?". Even one false positive, IMO, would have costs that
likely outweigh any benefits for typical installations with reasonably
reliable storage hardware.
I really do not believe that there's a case for turning on checksums by
default, and I *certainly* won't go along with turning them on without
somebody actually making that case. "Is it time yet" is not an argument.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2017-01-21 16:38:48 | Re: Failure in commit_ts tap tests |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-21 16:31:54 | Re: Checksums by default? |