Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > As for checksums, I do see value in them and I'm pretty sure that the > author of that particular feature did as well, or we wouldn't even have > it as an option. You seem to be of the opinion that we might as well > just rip all of that code and work out as being useless.
Not at all; I just think that it's not clear that they are a net win for the average user, and so I'm unconvinced that turning them on by default is a good idea. I could be convinced otherwise by suitable evidence. What I'm objecting to is turning them on without making any effort to collect such evidence. Also, if we do decide to do that, there's the question of timing. As I mentioned, one of the chief risks I see is the possibility of false-positive checksum failures due to bugs; I think that code has seen sufficiently little field use that we should have little confidence that no such bugs remain. So if we're gonna do it, I'd prefer to do it at the very start of a devel cycle, so as to have the greatest opportunity to find bugs before we ship the new default. 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