| From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | bruno vieira da silva <brunogiovs(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: data checksums |
| Date: | 2024-08-06 16:29:43 |
| Message-ID: | 15AB8DDB-7D4B-4272-801F-F5DD84E829E6@thebuild.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On Aug 6, 2024, at 08:11, bruno vieira da silva <brunogiovs(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> so my question is why data checksums aren't enabled by default on pg?
At this point, mostly historical reasons. They're also superfluous if your underlying file system or storage hardware does storage-level corruption checks (which most don't).
> the pg doc
> mentions a considerable performance penality, how considerable it is?
That line is probably somewhat out of date at this point. We haven't seen a significant slowdown in enabling them on any modern hardware. I always turn them on, except on the type of filesystems/hardware mentioned above.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2024-08-06 16:29:55 | Re: data checksums |
| Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2024-08-06 16:25:15 | Re: data checksums |