| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Date: | 2017-01-25 19:41:27 |
| Message-ID: | 10067.1485373287@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Would you say that most user's databases run fast enough with checksums
> enabled? Or more than most, maybe 70%? 80%? In today's environment,
> I'd probably say that it's more like 90+%.
It would be nice if there were some actual evidence about this, rather
than numbers picked out of the air.
> I agree that it's unfortunate that we haven't put more effort into
> fixing that- I'm all for it, but it's disappointing to see that people
> are not in favor of changing the default as I believe it would both help
> our users and encourage more development of the feature.
I think the really key point is that a whole lot of infrastructure work
needs to be done still, and changing the default before that work has been
done is not going to be user-friendly. The most pressing issue being the
difficulty of changing the setting after the fact. It would be a *whole*
lot easier to sell default-on if there were a way to turn it off, and yet
you want us to buy into default-on before that way exists. Come back
after that feature is in, and we can talk.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-25 19:46:22 | Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm. |
| Previous Message | Wang Hao | 2017-01-25 19:34:17 | Should buffer of initialization fork have a BM_PERMANENT flag |