| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| 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 16:41:56 |
| Message-ID: | 28714.1485016916@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:
> * Petr Jelinek (petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>> The change of wal_level was supported by benchmark, I think it's
>> reasonable to ask for this to be as well.
> No, it wasn't, it was that people felt the cases where changing
> wal_level would seriously hurt performance didn't out-weigh the value of
> making the change to the default.
It was "supported" in the sense that somebody took the trouble to measure
the impact, so that we had some facts on which to base the value judgment
that the cost was acceptable. In the case of checksums, you seem to be in
a hurry to arrive at a conclusion without any supporting evidence.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-21 16:51:28 | Re: Checksums by default? |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2017-01-21 16:41:45 | Re: Checksums by default? |