Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bruce Momjian
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Дата
Msg-id 20170223213745.GO20486@momjian.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:46:05PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Petr Jelinek (petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > As we don't know the performance impact is (there was no benchmark done
> > on reasonably current code base) I really don't understand how you can
> > judge if it's worth it or not.
> 
> Because I see having checksums as, frankly, something we always should
> have had (as most other databases do, for good reason...) and because
> they will hopefully prevent data loss.  I'm willing to give us a fair
> bit to minimize the risk of losing data.

Do these other databases do checksums because they don't do
full_page_writes?  They just detect torn pages rather than repair them
like we do?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Corey Huinker
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] btree_gin and btree_gist for enums