| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Date: | 2017-01-24 01:54:35 |
| Message-ID: | ea0c64a3-b506-1b6b-46f6-e43a6f9fdd10@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24/01/17 02:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>>>>> I don't recall ever seeing a checksum failure on a Heroku Postgres
>>>>> database,
>>
>> Not sure how this part of that sentence was missed:
>>
>> -----
>> ... even though they were enabled as soon as the feature became
>> available.
>> -----
>>
>> Which would seem to me to say "the code's been running for a long time
>> on a *lot* of systems without throwing a false positive or surfacing a
>> bug."
>
> I am reading that similarly to what Tom is seeing: enabling it has
> proved Heroku that it did not catch problems in years, meaning that
> the performance cost induced by enabling it has paid nothing in
> practive, except the insurance to catch up problems should they
> happen.
>
+1
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-01-24 01:55:17 | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-24 01:47:36 | Re: Checksums by default? |