[HACKERS] Checksums by default? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Date
Msg-id CABUevExR+1Xh5rM30m8=aWgQsteM-t0VVK+xcoiqHKSRZ+3BFg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Is it time to enable checksums by default, and give initdb a switch to turn it off instead?

I keep running into situations where people haven't enabled it, because (a) they didn't know about it, or (b) their packaging system ran initdb for them so they didn't even know they could. And of course they usually figure this out once the db has enough data and traffic that the only way to fix it is to set up something like slony/bucardo/pglogical and a whole new server to deal with it.. (Which is something that would also be good to fix -- but having the default changed would be useful as well)

--

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] patch: function xmltable
Next
From: Erik Rijkers
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] pdf versus single-html