Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwVLD3Qrf_zpSm7eUbjmWADO-x_Jf+7y5gE7szZ39k4Kg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default? (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
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?
Torn page detection is usually/often done by other means than checksums. I don't think those are necessarily related.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: