From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
Date: | 2017-01-21 16:23:38 |
Message-ID: | 79553cdb-40c8-2d67-24a3-45ea390bbfe6@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21/01/17 16:40, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Petr,
>
> * Petr Jelinek (petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>> On 21/01/17 11:39, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Is it time to enable checksums by default, and give initdb a switch to
>>> turn it off instead?
>>
>> I'd like to see benchmark first, both in terms of CPU and in terms of
>> produced WAL (=network traffic) given that it turns on logging of hint bits.
>
> Benchmarking was done previously, but I don't think it's really all that
> relevant, we should be checksum'ing by default because we care about the
> data and it's hard to get checksums enabled on a running system.
>
I do think that performance implications are very relevant. And I
haven't seen any serious benchmark that would incorporate all current
differences between using and not using checksums.
The change of wal_level was supported by benchmark, I think it's
reasonable to ask for this to be as well.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-21 16:31:54 | Re: Checksums by default? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-21 16:12:15 | Re: pdf versus single-html |