| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Enable data checksums by default |
| Date: | 2019-03-26 19:17:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkTXAQbm6sxQkshUCRGfkKT1i9xV7wU0xLrKJ8Rb1r9fQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:07 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> IMO, the main value of checksums is that they allow the Postgres
> project to deflect blame. That's nice for us but I'm not sure
> that it's a benefit for users. I've seen little if any data to
> suggest that checksums actually catch enough problems to justify
> the extra CPU costs and the risk of false positives.
I share your concern.
Some users have a peculiar kind of cognitive dissonance around
corruption, at least in my experience. It's very difficult for them to
make a choice on whether or not to fail hard. Perhaps that needs to be
taken into account, without being indulged.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jerry Jelinek | 2019-03-26 19:24:47 | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |
| Previous Message | Victor Kukshiev | 2019-03-26 18:59:24 | Fwd: Gsoc proposal perffarn |