On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:07:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Christoph Berg <m...@debian.org> writes: > > I think, the next step in that direction would be to enable data > > checksums by default. They make sense in most setups, > > Well, that is exactly the point that needs some proof, not just > an unfounded assertion. > > 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.
Enabling checksums by default will require anyone using pg_upgrade to run initdb to disable checksums before running pg_upgrade, for one release. We could add checksums for non-link pg_upgrade runs, but we don't have code to do that yet, and most people use link anyway. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
