Peter, * Peter Geoghegan (p...@heroku.com) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > > I understand that my experience with storage devices is unusually > > narrow compared to everyone else here. That's why I remain neutral on > > the high level question of whether or not we ought to enable checksums > > by default. I'll ask other hackers to answer what may seem like a very > > naive question, while bearing what I just said in mind. The question > > is: Have you ever actually seen a checksum failure in production? And, > > if so, how helpful was it? > > I'm surprised that nobody has answered my question yet. > > I'm not claiming that not actually seeing any corruption in the wild > due to a failing checksum invalidates any argument. I *do* think that > data points like this can be helpful, though.
Sadly, without having them enabled by default, there's not a huge corpus of example cases to draw from. There have been a few examples already posted about corruption failures with PG, but one can't say with certainty that they would have been caught sooner if checksums had been enabled. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature