| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| 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: | 2021-01-08 09:53:35 |
| Message-ID: | 6735a1c9d11d130117b6240d66cc8894115bf732.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 16:14 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I expected there'd be some disagreement on this, but I do continue to
> feel that it's sensible to enable checksums by default.
+1
I think the problem here (apart from the original line of argumentation)
is that there are two kinds of PostgreSQL installations:
- installations done on dubious hardware with minimal tuning
(the "cheap crowd")
- installations done on good hardware, where people make an effort to
properly configure the database (the "serious crowd")
I am aware that this is an oversimplification for the sake of the argument.
The voices against checksums on by default are probably thinking of
the serious crowd.
If checksums were enabled by default, the cheap crowd would benefit
from the early warnings that something has gone wrong.
The serious crowd are more likely to choose a non-default setting
to avoid paying the price for a feature that they don't need.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-01-08 09:59:45 | Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-01-08 09:35:28 | Re: proposal - psql - use pager for \watch command |