| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: data_checksums enabled by default (was: Move --data-checksums to common options in initdb --help) |
| Date: | 2021-01-08 14:46:58 |
| Message-ID: | 4941bdfc-817e-9c9b-1f1d-b90b79869663@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/8/21 5:03 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021, at 01:53, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>>
>> The serious crowd are more likely to choose a non-default setting
>> to avoid paying the price for a feature that they don't need.
>
> I don't really buy this argument. That way we're going to have an ever growing set of things that need to be tuned to have a database that's usable in an even halfway busy setup. That's unavoidable in some cases, but it's a significant cost across use cases.
>
> Increasing the overhead in the default config from one version to the next isn't great - it makes people more hesitant to upgrade. It's also not a cost you're going to find all that quickly, and it's a really hard to pin down cost.
I'm +1 for enabling checksums by default, even with the performance
penalties.
As far as people upgrading, one advantage is existing pg_upgrade'd
databases would not be affected. Only newly init'd clusters would get
this setting.
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-01-08 15:50:40 | Re: Proposal: Global Index |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-01-08 13:38:42 | Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table |