Re: Checksums by default?

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:46:05PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Petr Jelinek (petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > > As we don't know the performance impact is (there was no benchmark done
> > > on reasonably current code base) I really don't understand how you can
> > > judge if it's worth it or not.
> >
> > Because I see having checksums as, frankly, something we always should
> > have had (as most other databases do, for good reason...) and because
> > they will hopefully prevent data loss. I'm willing to give us a fair
> > bit to minimize the risk of losing data.
>
> Do these other databases do checksums because they don't do
> full_page_writes? They just detect torn pages rather than repair them
> like we do?
>

Torn page detection is usually/often done by other means than checksums. I
don't think those are necessarily related.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/