Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\))
Subject: Re: data checksums
From: Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB+Nuk8y88kvoRHsfN2Pjed9o_iM+9FbveU=4P8G0EQbzFP+qw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 09:29:43 -0700
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <15AB8DDB-7D4B-4272-801F-F5DD84E829E6@thebuild.com>
References: <CAB+Nuk8y88kvoRHsfN2Pjed9o_iM+9FbveU=4P8G0EQbzFP+qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: bruno vieira da silva <brunogiovs@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15AB8DDB-7D4B-4272-801F-F5DD84E829E6%40thebuild.com>
Precedence: bulk


> On Aug 6, 2024, at 08:11, bruno vieira da silva <brunogiovs@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> so my question is why data checksums aren't enabled by default on pg?

At this point, mostly historical reasons.  They're also superfluous if =
your underlying file system or storage hardware does storage-level =
corruption checks (which most don't).

> the pg doc=20
> mentions a considerable performance penality, how considerable it is?

That line is probably somewhat out of date at this point.  We haven't =
seen a significant slowdown in enabling them on any modern hardware.  I =
always turn them on, except on the type of filesystems/hardware =
mentioned above.=