Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20170223213745.GO20486@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:46:05PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Petr Jelinek (petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.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? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: