On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 09:46:58AM -0500, David Steele wrote: > On 1/8/21 5:03 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021, at 01:53, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > > > > > The serious crowd are more likely to choose a non-default setting > > > to avoid paying the price for a feature that they don't need. > > > > I don't really buy this argument. That way we're going to have an ever > > growing set of things that need to be tuned to have a database that's > > usable in an even halfway busy setup. That's unavoidable in some cases, but > > it's a significant cost across use cases. > > > > Increasing the overhead in the default config from one version to the next > > isn't great - it makes people more hesitant to upgrade. It's also not a > > cost you're going to find all that quickly, and it's a really hard to pin > > down cost. > > I'm +1 for enabling checksums by default, even with the performance > penalties. > > As far as people upgrading, one advantage is existing pg_upgrade'd databases > would not be affected. Only newly init'd clusters would get this setting.
I think once we have better online enabling of checksums people can more easily test the overhead on their workloads. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
