> On Apr 22, 2016, at 3:21 AM, Stuart Bishop <stuart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 20 April 2016 at 14:43, Alex Ignatov <a.ignatov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hello everyone! >> Today in Big Data epoch silent data corruption becoming more and more issue >> to afraid of. With uncorrectable read error rate ~ 10^-15 on multiterabyte >> disk bit rot is the real issue. >> I think that today checksumming data must be mandatory set by default. >> Only if someone doesn't care about his data he can manually turn this option >> off. >> >> What do you think about defaulting --data-checksums in initdb? > > I think --data-checksums should default to on. > > Databases created 'thoughtlessly' should have safe defaults. Operators > creating databases with care can elect to disable it if they are > redundant in their environment, if they cannot afford the overhead, or > consider their data low value enough to not want to pay the overheads. > > If the performance impact is deemed unacceptable, perhaps the ability > to turn them off on an existing database is easily doable (a one way > operation). > > -- > Stuart Bishop <stuart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > http://www.stuartbishop.net/ > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general +1 Bob Lunney Lead Data Architect MeetMe, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
