Re: Checksums by default?

* Andreas Karlsson (andreas(at)proxel(dot)se) wrote:
> On 01/21/2017 04:48 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Fujii Masao (masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> >>If the performance overhead by the checksums is really negligible,
> >>we may be able to get rid of wal_log_hints parameter, as well.
> >
> >Prior benchmarks showed it to be on the order of a few percent, as I
> >recall, so I'm not sure that we can say it's negligible (and that's not
> >why Magnus was proposing changing the default).
>
> It might be worth looking into using the CRC CPU instruction to
> reduce this overhead, like we do for the WAL checksums. Since that
> is a different algorithm it would be a compatibility break and we
> would need to support the old algorithm for upgraded clusters..

+1.

I'd be all for removing the option and requiring checksums if we do that
and it turns out that the performance hit ends up being less than 1%.

Thanks!

Stephen