Re: data_checksums enabled by default (was: Move --data-checksums to common options in initdb --help)
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: data_checksums enabled by default (was: Move --data-checksums to common options in initdb --help) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20210108155747.GE18394@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: data_checksums enabled by default (was: Move --data-checksums to common options in initdb --help) (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: data_checksums enabled by default (was: Move --data-checksums to common options in initdb --help)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 09:46:58AM -0500, David Steele wrote: > On 1/8/21 5:03 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021, at 01:53, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > I don't really buy this argument. That way we're going to have an ever growing set of things that need to be tuned tohave a database that's usable in an even halfway busy setup. That's unavoidable in some cases, but it's a significant costacross use cases. > > > > Increasing the overhead in the default config from one version to the next isn't great - it makes people more hesitantto upgrade. It's also not a cost you're going to find all that quickly, and it's a really hard to pin down cost. > > I'm +1 for enabling checksums by default, even with the performance > penalties. > > As far as people upgrading, one advantage is existing pg_upgrade'd databases > would not be affected. Only newly init'd clusters would get this setting. I think once we have better online enabling of checksums people can more easily test the overhead on their workloads. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: