* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Petr Jelinek (petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> The change of wal_level was supported by benchmark, I think it's > >> reasonable to ask for this to be as well. > > > No, it wasn't, it was that people felt the cases where changing > > wal_level would seriously hurt performance didn't out-weigh the value of > > making the change to the default. > > It was "supported" in the sense that somebody took the trouble to measure > the impact, so that we had some facts on which to base the value judgment > that the cost was acceptable. In the case of checksums, you seem to be in > a hurry to arrive at a conclusion without any supporting evidence.
No, no one measured the impact in the cases where wal_level=minimal makes a big difference, that I saw, at least. Further info with links to what was done are in my reply to Petr. As for checksums, I do see value in them and I'm pretty sure that the author of that particular feature did as well, or we wouldn't even have it as an option. You seem to be of the opinion that we might as well just rip all of that code and work out as being useless. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
