| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: data_checksums enabled by default (was: Move --data-checksums to common options in initdb --help) |
| Date: | 2021-01-06 17:10:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20210106171025.GH27507@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:02:40PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > It unfortunately also hurts other workloads. If we moved towards a saner
> > > compression algorithm that'd perhaps not be an issue anymore...
> >
> > I agree that improving compression performance would be good but I don't
> > see that as relevant to the question of what our defaults should be.
> >
> > imv, enabling page checksums is akin to having fsync enabled by default.
> > Does it impact performance? Yes, surely quite a lot, but it's also the
> > safe and sane choice when it comes to defaults.
>
> Well, you know fsyncs are required to recover from an OS crash, which is
> more likely than detecting data corruption.
Yes, I do know that. That doesn't change my feeling that we should have
checksums enabled by default.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-01-06 17:16:38 | Re: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-01-06 17:08:08 | Re: data_checksums enabled by default (was: Move --data-checksums to common options in initdb --help) |