On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:07 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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
