Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqQ__KQdDfc3nFhACjJH72-VzUfwr1MYFE8YqTuf2bXEkA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] Checksums by default? (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Is it time to enable checksums by default, and give initdb a switch to turn > it off instead? > > I keep running into situations where people haven't enabled it, because (a) > they didn't know about it, or (b) their packaging system ran initdb for them > so they didn't even know they could. And of course they usually figure this > out once the db has enough data and traffic that the only way to fix it is > to set up something like slony/bucardo/pglogical and a whole new server to > deal with it.. (Which is something that would also be good to fix -- but > having the default changed would be useful as well) Perhaps that's not mandatory, but I think that one obstacle in changing this default is to be able to have pg_upgrade work from a checksum-disabled old instance to a checksum-enabled instance. That would really help with its adoption. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: