On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> Sure, it might be easy, but we don't have it. Personally I think >> checksums just aren't even ready for prime time. If we had: >> - ability to switch on/off at runtime (early patches for that have IIRC >> been posted) >> - *builtin* tooling to check checksums for everything >> - *builtin* tooling to compute checksums after changing setting >> - configurable background sweeps for checksums > > Yeah, and there's a bunch of usability tooling that we don't have, > centered around "what do you do after you get a checksum error?". > AFAIK there's no way to check or clear such an error; but without > such tools, I'm afraid that checksums are as much of a foot-gun > as a benefit.
I see your point here, but they sure saved my ass with that pl/sh issue. So I'm inclined to lightly disagree; there are good arguments either way. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers