Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Petr Jelinek
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Date
Msg-id 79553cdb-40c8-2d67-24a3-45ea390bbfe6@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 21/01/17 16:40, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Petr,
> 
> * Petr Jelinek (petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pdf versus single-html
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?