On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 07:11:43PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > Am Samstag, den 02.01.2021, 10:47 -0500 schrieb Stephen Frost: >> * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 08:34:34PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: >>> > I think enough people use data checksums these days that it warrants to >>> > be moved into the "normal part", like in the attached. >>> >>> +1. Let's see first what others think about this change. >> >> I agree with this.
Okay, so I have applied this part as it makes sense independently. >> But I'd also like to propose, again, as has been >> discussed a few times, making it the default too. While I don't particularly disagree, I think that this needs careful evaluation. > So maybe we should switch on wal_compression if we enable data checksums > by default. I don't agree with this assumption. In some CPU-bounded workloads, I have seen that wal_compression = on leads to performance degradation with or without checksums enabled. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
