Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Believe it or not, we haven't gotten many requests for this feature,
> partly because such corruption is so rare. Also, any checker isn't
> going to find a change from "Baker" to "Faker" in a text field.
Well there were people asking for per-block checksums. Given the frequency of
people complaining about hardware problems I'm starting to think they may be a
good idea after all.
But checksums don't detect corruption caused by software failure. That would
require a more of an fsck-like approach. There's nothing wrong with the idea,
but it would be a lot of work and nobody else has felt the need for it.
--
greg
