Re: Using of --data-checksums

Greetings,

* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:54:34AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * BGoebel (b(dot)goebel(at)prisma-computer(dot)de) wrote:
> > > initdb --data-checksums "... help to detect corruption by the I/O system"
> > > There is an (negligible?) impact on performance, ok.
> > >
> > > Is there another reason NOT to use this feature ?
> >
> > Not in my view.
> >
> > > Has anyone had good or bad experience with the use of --data-checksums?
> >
> > Have had good experience with it. We should really make it the default
> > already.
>
> Yeah, but I think we wanted more ability to change an existing cluster
> before doing that since it would affect pg_upgraded servers.

There's definitely a lot of reasons to want to have the ability to
change an existing cluster. Considering the complications around
running pg_upgrade already, I don't really think that changing the
default of initdb would be that big a hurdle for folks to deal with-
they'd try the pg_upgrade, get a very quick error that the new cluster
has checksums enabled and the old one didn't, and they'd re-initdb the
new cluster and then re-run pg_upgrade to figure out what the next issue
is..

Thanks,

Stephen