On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Trying to force those people to use checksums is just masterminding; > they've made their own decision that it's not worth bothering with. > When something goes wrong, WE still care about distinguishing hardware > failure from PostgreSQL failure. Our pride is on the line. But the > customer often doesn't. The DBA isn't the same person as the > operating system guy, and the operating system guy isn't going to > listen to the DBA even if the DBA complains of checksum failures.
We need to invest in corruption detection/verification tools that are run on an as-needed basis. They are available to users of every other major database system. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
