On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 15:42, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > I did a quick review and the patch seems fine to me. Let's wait for a > bit and see if there are any objections - if not, I'll get it committed > in the next CF. > > Tomas, thanks for your review. > 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. > > 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. -- Euler Taveira http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
