On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 09:01:15PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > > > The current behavior is only useful for debugging purposes.
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 15:42, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > One thing I'm not sure about is whether we should have the GUC as > > proposed, or have a negative "keep_temp_files_after_restart" defaulting > > to false. But I don't have a very good justification for the alternative > > other than vague personal preference. On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 09:01:15PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > I thought about not providing a GUC at all or provide it in the developer > section. I've never heard someone saying that they use those temporary > files to investigate an issue. Regarding a crash, all information is already > available and temporary files don't provide extra details. This new GUC is > just to keep the > previous behavior. I'm fine without the GUC, though. Should this GUC be classified as a developer option, and removed from postgresql.sample.conf ? That was discussed initially in October but not since. On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:16:26AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > It also has an undesirable behavior: you have to restart the service to > reclaim the space. BTW, that's not really true - you can remove the tempfiles while the server is running. The complainant in bug#16427 was being careful - which is good. I watch for and remove tempfiles older than 2 days. The worst consequence of removing a tempfile would be a failed query. -- Justin
