Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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 see your point here, but they sure saved my ass with that pl/sh
issue.  So I'm inclined to lightly disagree; there are good arguments
either way.

merlin