Re: Checksums by default?

From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Magnus Hagander' <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checksums by default?
Date: 2017-01-23 01:13:53
Message-ID: 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F6786AC@G01JPEXMBYT05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander
> 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)

+10
I was wondering why the community had decided to turn it off by default. IIRC, the reason was that the performance overhead was 20-30% when the entire data directory was placed on the tmpfs, but it's not as important as the data protection by default.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-01-23 03:29:18 Enabling replication connections by default in pg_hba.conf
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2017-01-23 01:11:00 Re: Logical Replication WIP