Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> 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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
