Jim, * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: > On 1/23/17 6:55 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: > >>As others have mentioned, right now practically no one enables this, > >>so we've got zero data on how useful it might actually be. > >Uhm, Peter G just said that Heroku enables this on all their databases > >and have yet to see a false-positive report or an issue with having it > >enabled. > > > >That, plus the reports and evidence we've seen in the past couple days, > >look like a pretty ringing endorsement for having them. > > > >I'll ping the RDS crowd and see if they'll tell me what they're doing > >and what their thoughts are on it. > > Oh, I read the thread as "there's no data to support checksums are > useful",
There's been multiple reports on this thread that corruption does happen. Sure, it'd be nice if we had a report of it happening with checksums enabled and where checksums caught it, but I don't see any basis for an argument that they wouldn't ever catch real-world bit-flipping corruption. > IIRC Grant's mentioned in one of his presentations that they enable > checksums, but getting more explicit info would be good. Frankly, my recollection is that they wouldn't use PG until it had page-level checksums, and that they run it on all of their instances, but I'd like to get confirmation of that, if I can, and also hear if they've got examples of the checksums we have catching real issues. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
