From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:07:20 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQz_Q9VD2GzzG2F5SaOUxFDsAuvaEP-haOMtOuVdnG8-A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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. The only other
resource GUC that is scoped per session that I can see is
temp_buffers, but that doesn't need to change, since parallel workers
cannot use temp_buffers directly in practice. max_files_per_process is
already clearly per process, so no change needed there either.
I don't see a case other than temp_file_limit that appears to be even
marginally in need of a specific note.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-05 19:09:42 | Re: can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-05 19:00:52 | Re: Parallel query and temp_file_limit |