From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Checksums by default? |
Date: | 2017-02-24 14:03:58 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEwVLD3Qrf_zpSm7eUbjmWADO-x_Jf+7y5gE7szZ39k4Kg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:46:05PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Petr Jelinek (petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > > As we don't know the performance impact is (there was no benchmark done
> > > on reasonably current code base) I really don't understand how you can
> > > judge if it's worth it or not.
> >
> > Because I see having checksums as, frankly, something we always should
> > have had (as most other databases do, for good reason...) and because
> > they will hopefully prevent data loss. I'm willing to give us a fair
> > bit to minimize the risk of losing data.
>
> Do these other databases do checksums because they don't do
> full_page_writes? They just detect torn pages rather than repair them
> like we do?
>
Torn page detection is usually/often done by other means than checksums. I
don't think those are necessarily related.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-02-24 14:48:30 | Re: btree_gin and btree_gist for enums |
Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2017-02-24 13:59:58 | Re: ParallelFinish-hook of FDW/CSP (Re: Steps inside ExecEndGather) |