Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?

On 2017-01-21 12:09:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, if we do decide to do that, there's the question of timing.
> As I mentioned, one of the chief risks I see is the possibility of
> false-positive checksum failures due to bugs; I think that code has seen
> sufficiently little field use that we should have little confidence that
> no such bugs remain.  So if we're gonna do it, I'd prefer to do it at the
> very start of a devel cycle, so as to have the greatest opportunity to
> find bugs before we ship the new default.

What wouldn't hurt is enabling it by default in pg_regress on master for
a while. That seems like a good thing to do independent of flipping the
default.

Andres