Re: Enable data checksums by default

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-07-30T12:09:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Avoid BufferGetLSNAtomic() calls during nbtree scans.

  2. doc PG 18 relnotes: Add incompatibility note about checksums now default

  3. Fix pg_upgrade's cross-version tests when old < 18

  4. initdb: Change default to using data checksums.

  5. Allow TAP tests to force checksums off when calling init()

  6. initdb: Add new option "--no-data-checksums"

  7. Tweak docs to reduce possible impact of data checksums

> 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