* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-01-21 12:09:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > 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. > > What wouldn't hurt is enabling it by default in pg_regress on master for > a while. That seems like a good thing to do independent of flipping the > default.
Oh. I like that idea, a lot. +1. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
