From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
Date: | 2017-01-21 16:54:11 |
Message-ID: | 20170121165411.GJ18360@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andreas Karlsson (andreas(at)proxel(dot)se) wrote:
> On 01/21/2017 04:48 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Fujii Masao (masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> >>If the performance overhead by the checksums is really negligible,
> >>we may be able to get rid of wal_log_hints parameter, as well.
> >
> >Prior benchmarks showed it to be on the order of a few percent, as I
> >recall, so I'm not sure that we can say it's negligible (and that's not
> >why Magnus was proposing changing the default).
>
> It might be worth looking into using the CRC CPU instruction to
> reduce this overhead, like we do for the WAL checksums. Since that
> is a different algorithm it would be a compatibility break and we
> would need to support the old algorithm for upgraded clusters..
+1.
I'd be all for removing the option and requiring checksums if we do that
and it turns out that the performance hit ends up being less than 1%.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-01-21 16:57:10 | Re: Checksums by default? |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-21 16:53:21 | Re: Checksums by default? |