| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Enable data checksums by default |
| Date: | 2025-07-30 09:58:45 |
| Message-ID: | 7e24ec00f772ef168c298032c5575392d3b9b09f.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2025-07-29 at 20:24 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> So, what should we do with the PG18 open item? We (the RMT team) would
> like to know if we shall keep the checksums enabled by default, and if
> there's something that still needs to be done for PG18.
I don't have a strong opinion, but I lean towards having them on
by default. Yes, that has a performance impact (e.g. WAL logging hints),
and people with reliable storage may be better off disabling checksums.
But I think it is better to set the default values so that they are
good for those people who don't have a lot of PostgreSQL knowledge and
are running less demanding installations on mediocre hardware.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2025-07-30 10:14:58 | Re: Automatically sizing the IO worker pool |
| Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2025-07-30 09:35:52 | Re: 024_add_drop_pub.pl might fail due to deadlock |