From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
Date: | 2017-01-21 16:39:29 |
Message-ID: | 612f295f-07b9-81e8-ae93-0888cafe8f53@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21/01/17 17:31, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Petr,
>
> * Petr Jelinek (petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>> On 21/01/17 16:40, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> * Petr Jelinek (petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>>>> On 21/01/17 11:39, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>>> Is it time to enable checksums by default, and give initdb a switch to
>>>>> turn it off instead?
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to see benchmark first, both in terms of CPU and in terms of
>>>> produced WAL (=network traffic) given that it turns on logging of hint bits.
>>>
>>> Benchmarking was done previously, but I don't think it's really all that
>>> relevant, we should be checksum'ing by default because we care about the
>>> data and it's hard to get checksums enabled on a running system.
>>
>> I do think that performance implications are very relevant. And I
>> haven't seen any serious benchmark that would incorporate all current
>> differences between using and not using checksums.
>
> This is just changing the *default*, not requiring checksums to always
> be enabled. We do not hold the same standards for our defaults as we do
> for always-enabled code, for clear reasons- not every situation is the
> same and that's why we have defaults that people can change.
I can buy that. If it's possible to turn checksums off without
recreating data directory then I think it would be okay to have default on.
>> 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.
>
Really?
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d34ce5b5-131f-66ce-f7c5-eb406dbe026f@2ndquadrant.com
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/83b33502-1bf8-1ffb-7c73-5b61ddeb68ab@2ndquadrant.com
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2017-01-21 16:41:45 | Re: Checksums by default? |
Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2017-01-21 16:38:48 | Re: Failure in commit_ts tap tests |