On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 16:14 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I expected there'd be some disagreement on this, but I do continue to
> > feel that it's sensible to enable checksums by default.
>
> +1
>
> I think the problem here (apart from the original line of argumentation)
> is that there are two kinds of PostgreSQL installations:
>
> - installations done on dubious hardware with minimal tuning
> (the "cheap crowd")
>
> - installations done on good hardware, where people make an effort to
> properly configure the database (the "serious crowd")
>
> I am aware that this is an oversimplification for the sake of the argument.
>
> The voices against checksums on by default are probably thinking of
> the serious crowd.
>
> If checksums were enabled by default, the cheap crowd would benefit
> from the early warnings that something has gone wrong.
>
> The serious crowd are more likely to choose a non-default setting
> to avoid paying the price for a feature that they don't need.
I think you have captured the major issue here --- it explains a lot.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
