From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Enable data checksums by default |
Date: | 2019-04-10 03:11:03 |
Message-ID: | 20190410031103.ql4dubhkll65lcdq@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:07:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> writes:
> > I think, the next step in that direction would be to enable data
> > checksums by default. They make sense in most setups,
>
> Well, that is exactly the point that needs some proof, not just
> an unfounded assertion.
>
> IMO, the main value of checksums is that they allow the Postgres
> project to deflect blame. That's nice for us but I'm not sure
> that it's a benefit for users. I've seen little if any data to
> suggest that checksums actually catch enough problems to justify
> the extra CPU costs and the risk of false positives.
Enabling checksums by default will require anyone using pg_upgrade to
run initdb to disable checksums before running pg_upgrade, for one
release. We could add checksums for non-link pg_upgrade runs, but we
don't have code to do that yet, and most people use link anyway.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2019-04-10 03:19:04 | Re: pgsql: tableam: basic documentation. |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-04-10 03:09:21 | Re: Enable data checksums by default |