On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 16:14 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I expected there'd be some disagreement on this, but I do continue to > > feel that it's sensible to enable checksums by default. > > +1 > > I think the problem here (apart from the original line of argumentation) > is that there are two kinds of PostgreSQL installations: > > - installations done on dubious hardware with minimal tuning > (the "cheap crowd") > > - installations done on good hardware, where people make an effort to > properly configure the database (the "serious crowd") > > I am aware that this is an oversimplification for the sake of the argument. > > The voices against checksums on by default are probably thinking of > the serious crowd. > > If checksums were enabled by default, the cheap crowd would benefit > from the early warnings that something has gone wrong. > > The serious crowd are more likely to choose a non-default setting > to avoid paying the price for a feature that they don't need.
I think you have captured the major issue here --- it explains a lot. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
