From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel query and temp_file_limit |
Date: | 2016-07-05 19:58:07 |
Message-ID: | 28930.1467748687@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think that it is not worth mentioning specifically for
>> temp_file_limit; to me that seems to be a hole with no bottom. We'll
>> end up arguing about which GUCs should mention it specifically and
>> there will be no end to it.
> I don't think that you need it for any other GUC, so I really don't
> know why you're concerned about a slippery slope.
FWIW, I agree with Robert on this. It seems just weird to call out
temp_file_limit specifically. Also, I don't agree that that's the
only interesting per-process resource consumption; max_files_per_process
seems much more likely to cause trouble in practice.
Perhaps we could change the wording of temp_file_limit's description
from "space that a session can use" to "space that a process can use"
to help clarify this?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-07-05 19:59:00 | Re: Parallel query and temp_file_limit |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-05 19:48:20 | Re: can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP |