| From: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: data checksums |
| Date: | 2024-08-06 16:25:15 |
| Message-ID: | CANzqJaDruMZaom0ZCvum=r_b9Z-Sri7SqbGfEpqxOyCH0x-K9w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 11:12 AM bruno vieira da silva <brunogiovs(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Hello.
> I've been dealing with some database corruption events, so i've been
> wondering to enable data checksums on my deployments.
>
> so my question is why data checksums aren't enabled by default on pg? the
> pg doc
> mentions a considerable performance penality, how considerable it is?
>
I'm going to hazard a guess that the relevant line from the docs were
written many many years ago, back when servers were much slower.
We certainly didn't notice any speed degradation when going from PG 9.6.24
to PG 14.12. Or... we just use enough hardware and flash-only SAN disks to
make the overhead minuscule.
--
Death to America, and butter sauce.
Iraq lobster!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christophe Pettus | 2024-08-06 16:29:43 | Re: data checksums |
| Previous Message | bruno vieira da silva | 2024-08-06 15:11:55 | data checksums |