On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 9:12 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > On 2021/10/10 1:25, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 9:42 PM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > >> > >> I doubt there's much confusion here - crashes are treated the same. I > >> think > >> the fix would be to say "server crash" rather than backend crash. > > > > IIUC, the "server crash" includes any backend, auxiliary process, > > postmaster crash i.e. database cluster/instance crash. The commit > > cd91de0d1 especially added the temp file cleanup support if any > > backend or auxiliary process (except syslogger and stats collector) > > Also the startup process should be in this exception list?
Yes, if the startup process fails, neither restart_after_crash nor remove_temp_files_after_crash code path is hit. > > crashes. The temp file cleanup in postmaster crash does exist prior to > > the commit cd91de0d1. > > > > When we add the description about the new GUC introduced by the commit > > cd91de0d1, let's be clear as to which crash triggers the new temp file > > cleanup path. > > If we really want to add this information, the description of > restart_after_crash seems more proper place to do that in. > remove_temp_files_after_crash works only when the processes are > reinitialized because restart_after_crash is enabled. IMO, we can add the new description as proposed in my v1 patch (after adding startup process to the exception list) to both the GUCs restart_after_crash and remove_temp_files_after_crash. And, in remove_temp_files_after_crash GUC description we can just add a note saying "this GUC is effective only when restart_after_crash is on". Also, I see that the restart_after_crash and remove_temp_files_after_crash descriptions in guc.c say "Remove temporary files after backend crash.". I think we can also modify them to "Remove temporary files after the backend or auxiliary process (except startup, syslogger and stats collector) crash. Thoughts? Regards, Bharath Rupireddy.