| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2017-01-26 01:25:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSguNUnyk6sBnuXB6JPJDbXRFud-EutY01JaTtRBRcZrg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> I understand that my experience with storage devices is unusually
> narrow compared to everyone else here. That's why I remain neutral on
> the high level question of whether or not we ought to enable checksums
> by default. I'll ask other hackers to answer what may seem like a very
> naive question, while bearing what I just said in mind. The question
> is: Have you ever actually seen a checksum failure in production? And,
> if so, how helpful was it?
I'm surprised that nobody has answered my question yet.
I'm not claiming that not actually seeing any corruption in the wild
due to a failing checksum invalidates any argument. I *do* think that
data points like this can be helpful, though.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-26 01:28:03 | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-26 01:22:12 | Re: pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check |