Re: Checksums by default?

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