| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)mail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: data-checksums |
| Date: | 2018-01-09 20:22:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20180109202259.cpszfiavep42pp6v@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2018-01-09 20:04:04 +0100, Rakesh Kumar wrote:
>
> > > I also would like to believe that the hit is small, but when PG
> > > official document writes "noticeable performance penalty", it becomes
> > > difficult to convince management that the hit is small :-)
> >
> > Why believe, when you can measure?
>
> yup doing that. But I still feel that PG documentation should stay
> away from such scare mongering. Or did the lawyers write that :)
So we should rather lie about it having a potential for performance
impact? Who'd be helped by that?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2018-01-09 20:37:16 | Re: data-checksums |
| Previous Message | George Neuner | 2018-01-09 20:02:33 | Re: data-checksums |