Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > > I'm not completely grokking your second paragraph, but I would think that an > > average user would love got get a heads-up that their hardware is failing. > > Sure. If the database runs fast enough with checksums enabled, > there's basically no reason to have them turned off. The issue is > when it doesn't.
I don't believe we're talking about forcing every user to have checksums enabled. We are discussing the default. Would you say that most user's databases run fast enough with checksums enabled? Or more than most, maybe 70%? 80%? In today's environment, I'd probably say that it's more like 90+%. Yet, our default is to have them disabled and *really* hard to enable. I agree that it's unfortunate that we haven't put more effort into fixing that- I'm all for it, but it's disappointing to see that people are not in favor of changing the default as I believe it would both help our users and encourage more development of the feature. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
