Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?

Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> writes:
> On 1/23/17 7:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> It might be interesting to consider checking them in 'clean' pages in
>> shared_buffers in a background process, as that, presumably, *would*
>> detect shared buffers corruption.

> Hmm... that would be interesting. Assuming the necessary functions are 
> exposed it presumably wouldn't be difficult to do that in an extension, 
> as a bgworker.

But we don't maintain the checksum of a page while it sits in shared
buffers.  Trying to do so would break, eg, concurrent hint-bit updates.
        regards, tom lane