On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 4:43 AM Michael Banck <mba...@gmx.net> wrote:
> I think the last time we dicussed this the consensus was that
> computational overhead of computing the checksums is pretty small for
> most systems (so the above change seems warranted regardless of whether
> we switch the default), but turning on wal_compression also turns on
> wal_log_hints, which can increase WAL by quite a lot. Maybe this is
> covered elsewhere in the documentation (I just looked at the patch), but
> if not, it probably should be added here as a word of caution.
>
Yeah, that seems something beyond this patch? Certainly we should mention
wal_compression in the release notes if the default changes. I mean, I feel
wal_log_hints should probably default to on as well, but I've honestly
never really given it much thought because my fingers are trained to type
"initdb -k". I've been using data checksums for roughly a decade now. I
think the only time I've NOT used checksums was when I was doing checksum
overhead measurements, or hacking on the pg_checksums program.
> I think we usually do not mention when a feature was added/changed, do
> we? So I'd just write "(default: enabled)" or whatever is the style of
> the surrounding options.
>
+1
> > + {"no-data-checksums", no_argument, NULL, 20},
>
> Does it make sense to add -K (capital k) as a short-cut for this? I
> think this is how we distinguish on/off for pg_dump (-t/-T etc.) but
> maybe that is not wider project policy.
>
I'd rather not. Better to keep it explicit rather than some other weird
letter that has no mnemonic value.
Cheers,
Greg
