On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 01:17:09PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > True. Hence the stress testing I've been doing - and indeed, that made > us discover the various issues reported in this thread. > > Still, isn't that similar to error paths in various other patches? Those > also tend to be rarely exercised in practice. I think the right way to > address that is more testing. Of course, there's a difference between > "regular bugs" and "design problems". Some of the issues are more about > the design/architecture not considering something important. > > I don't know if / when this will be ready for commit. Maybe never, who > knows. I prefer going step by step. We know about a couple issues, we > need to figure out what to do about those. Then we can reconsider. > > FWIW I'm not sure the number of people currently enabling checksums on > production databases is a good metric of how important the patch is. > Maybe more people would like to do that, but can't accept the downtime.
I think it is a worth-while feature. We would have had it years ago except that people asked for re-start-ability after a crash, and since we don't have restart logic at the relation level, the patch got too complex and was abandoned. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
