Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Sure, it might be easy, but we don't have it. Personally I think
> checksums just aren't even ready for prime time. If we had:
> - ability to switch on/off at runtime (early patches for that have IIRC
> been posted)
> - *builtin* tooling to check checksums for everything
> - *builtin* tooling to compute checksums after changing setting
> - configurable background sweeps for checksums
Yeah, and there's a bunch of usability tooling that we don't have,
centered around "what do you do after you get a checksum error?".
AFAIK there's no way to check or clear such an error; but without
such tools, I'm afraid that checksums are as much of a foot-gun
as a benefit.
I think developing all this stuff is a good long-term activity,
but I'm hesitant about turning checksums loose on the average
user before we have it.
To draw a weak analogy, our checksums right now are more or less
where our replication was in 9.1 --- we had it, but there were still
an awful lot of rough edges. It was only just in this past release
cycle that we started to change default settings towards the idea
that they should support replication by default. I think the checksum
tooling likewise needs years of maturation before we can say that it's
realistically ready to be the default.
regards, tom lane
