From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464@mail.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: data-checksums
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 15:41:49 -0300
Message-ID: <20180109184149.ih4ore4c4axwizor@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <trinity-9ae7ee48-40c7-4820-ac76-c53e606435ab-1515520721430@3c-app-mailcom-lxa16>
Rakesh Kumar wrote:
>
> > That said, imv anyway, the performance hit is small and having
> > checksums is well worth it.
>
> I also would like to believe that the hit is small, but when PG
> official document writes "noticeable performance penalty", it becomes
> difficult to convince management that the hit is small :-)
Why believe, when you can measure?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, rakeshkumar464@mail.com, sfrost@snowman.net, pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: data-checksums
In-Reply-To: <20180109184149.ih4ore4c4axwizor@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox