public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Ron Johnson <[email protected]>
To: pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: data checksums
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:25:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CANzqJaDruMZaom0ZCvum=r_b9Z-Sri7SqbGfEpqxOyCH0x-K9w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB+Nuk8y88kvoRHsfN2Pjed9o_iM+9FbveU=4P8G0EQbzFP+qw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB+Nuk8y88kvoRHsfN2Pjed9o_iM+9FbveU=4P8G0EQbzFP+qw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 11:12 AM bruno vieira da silva <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hello.
> I've been dealing with some database corruption events, so i've been
> wondering to enable data checksums on my deployments.
>
> so my question is why data checksums aren't enabled by default on pg? the
> pg doc
> mentions a considerable performance penality, how considerable it is?
>
I'm going to hazard a guess that the relevant line from the docs were
written many many years ago, back when servers were much slower.
We certainly didn't notice any speed degradation when going from PG 9.6.24
to PG 14.12. Or... we just use enough hardware and flash-only SAN disks to
make the overhead minuscule.
--
Death to America, and butter sauce.
Iraq lobster!
view thread (8+ messages) latest in thread
reply
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: data checksums
In-Reply-To: <CANzqJaDruMZaom0ZCvum=r_b9Z-Sri7SqbGfEpqxOyCH0x-K9w@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox