From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464@mail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
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 12:22:59 -0800
Message-ID: <20180109202259.cpszfiavep42pp6v@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <trinity-6e592d6e-7902-4df2-8806-95914ae94d12-1515524644593@3c-app-mailcom-lxa04>
References: <trinity-9ae7ee48-40c7-4820-ac76-c53e606435ab-1515520721430@3c-app-mailcom-lxa16>
<20180109184149.ih4ore4c4axwizor@alvherre.pgsql>
<trinity-6e592d6e-7902-4df2-8806-95914ae94d12-1515524644593@3c-app-mailcom-lxa04>
On 2018-01-09 20:04:04 +0100, Rakesh Kumar wrote:
>
> > > 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?
>
> yup doing that. But I still feel that PG documentation should stay
> away from such scare mongering. Or did the lawyers write that :)
So we should rather lie about it having a potential for performance
impact? Who'd be helped by that?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
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: andres@anarazel.de, rakeshkumar464@mail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, sfrost@snowman.net, pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: data-checksums
In-Reply-To: <20180109202259.cpszfiavep42pp6v@alap3.anarazel.de>
* 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