Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> Have we seen *even one* report of checksums catching problems in a useful >> way?
> This isn't the right question. I disagree. If they aren't doing something useful for people who have turned them on, what's the reason to think they'd do something useful for the rest? > The right question is "have we seen reports of corruption which > checksums *would* have caught?" Sure, that's also a useful question, one which hasn't been answered. A third useful question is "have we seen any reports of false-positive checksum failures?". Even one false positive, IMO, would have costs that likely outweigh any benefits for typical installations with reasonably reliable storage hardware. I really do not believe that there's a case for turning on checksums by default, and I *certainly* won't go along with turning them on without somebody actually making that case. "Is it time yet" is not an argument. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers