| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2017-01-21 17:53:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20170121175345.ixaxi6pkudhqhdy5@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-01-21 12:46:05 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I stand by the opinion that changing default which affect performance
> > without any benchmark is bad idea.
>
> I'd be surprised if the performance impact has really changed all that
> much since the code went in. Perhaps that's overly optimistic of me.
Back then there were cases with well over 20% overhead. More edge cases,
but that's a lot. And our scalability back then was a lot worse than
where we are today.
> > And for the record, I care much less about overall TPS, I care a lot
> > more about amount of WAL produced because in 90%+ environments that I
> > work with any increase in WAL amount means at least double the increase
> > in network bandwidth due to replication.
>
> Do you run with all defaults in those environments?
Irrelevant - changing requires re-initdb'ing. That's unrealistic.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-21 18:03:52 | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-01-21 17:53:41 | Re: Checksums by default? |