Peter, * Peter Geoghegan (p...@heroku.com) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.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.
Sadly, without having them enabled by default, there's not a huge corpus of example cases to draw from. There have been a few examples already posted about corruption failures with PG, but one can't say with certainty that they would have been caught sooner if checksums had been enabled. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
