On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 07:11:43PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 02.01.2021, 10:47 -0500 schrieb Stephen Frost:
>> * Michael Paquier (michael@paquier.xyz) wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 08:34:34PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>>> > I think enough people use data checksums these days that it warrants to
>>> > be moved into the "normal part", like in the attached.
>>>
>>> +1. Let's see first what others think about this change.
>>
>> I agree with this.
Okay, so I have applied this part as it makes sense independently.
>> But I'd also like to propose, again, as has been
>> discussed a few times, making it the default too.
While I don't particularly disagree, I think that this needs careful
evaluation.
> So maybe we should switch on wal_compression if we enable data checksums
> by default.
I don't agree with this assumption. In some CPU-bounded workloads, I
have seen that wal_compression = on leads to performance degradation
with or without checksums enabled.
--
Michael
