Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:22:59 -0800
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464@mail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
	"pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: data-checksums
Message-ID: <20180109202259.cpszfiavep42pp6v@alap3.anarazel.de>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <trinity-6e592d6e-7902-4df2-8806-95914ae94d12-1515524644593@3c-app-mailcom-lxa04>
Precedence: bulk

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