Re: Enable data checksums by default

> On Jul 30, 2025, at 8:09 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>
>> On 30 Jul 2025, at 11:58, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2025-07-29 at 20:24 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> So, what should we do with the PG18 open item? We (the RMT team) would
>>> like to know if we shall keep the checksums enabled by default, and if
>>> there's something that still needs to be done for PG18.
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion, but I lean towards having them on
>> by default.
>
> I agree with that, while there might be a lot of cases where disabling
> checksums is the right move it's still a sane default.
>
> --
> Daniel Gustafsson

I realize I’m late to the conversation, I’ve been lurking...

I agree that enabling checksums by default is the sane default.  Databases
should always make a best effort for data integrity, checksums are a
positive step in that direction.

I recall a conversation at the last PGConf.dev (2025) with a representative
from Intel and Jeff Davis (CC’ed) that had to do with checksums and a vast
performance difference between Intel and AMD the latter winning by a mile.
I forget the details, maybe Jeff remembers more than I do.  I’m not
suggesting that we disable Intel by default or trying to derail this
conversation (which appears to be reaching consensus), just raising
awareness.

best,

-greg