> On 1 Apr 2022, at 15:57, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 9:42 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> This has been sitting the CF for quite some time, time to make a decision on
>> it. I think it makes sense, having detailed docs around debugging is rarely
>> a
>> bad thing. Does anyone
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 9:42 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I think "useless" is a bit too strong and subjective given that it's
> describing
> an unknown situation out of the ordinary. How about "outdated" or "redundant"
> (or something else entirely which is even better)?
It's the existing
> On 12 Oct 2021, at 08:40, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> Here's a v2 patch that I could come up with. Please review it further.
+debugging, for example. Repeated crashes may however result in
+accumulation of useless files. This parameter can only be set in the
I think
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:37 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> > 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
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:53 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:50:28PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > I noticed another thing that the remove_temp_files_after_crash is
> > categorized as DEVELOPER_OPTIONS, shouldn't it be under
> > RESOURCES_DISK?
>
> See here:
>
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:50:28PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I noticed another thing that the remove_temp_files_after_crash is
> categorized as DEVELOPER_OPTIONS, shouldn't it be under
> RESOURCES_DISK?
See here:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:37 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> On 2021/10/10 22:33, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> >>> 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
On 2021/10/10 22:33, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
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
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 9:12 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On 2021/10/10 1:25, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 9:42 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >>
> >> I doubt there's much confusion here - crashes are treated the same. I
> >> think
> >> the fix would be to say "server crash"
On 2021/10/10 1:25, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 9:42 PM Justin Pryzby 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,
On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 9:42 PM Justin Pryzby 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.
On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 09:18:24PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 4:27 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The commit [1] for the feature "Remove temporary files after backend
> > crash" introduced following in the docs:
> > +
> > +When set
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 4:27 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The commit [1] for the feature "Remove temporary files after backend
> crash" introduced following in the docs:
> +
> +When set to on, which is the default,
> +PostgreSQL will automatically remove
> +
Hi,
The commit [1] for the feature "Remove temporary files after backend
crash" introduced following in the docs:
+
+When set to on, which is the default,
+PostgreSQL will automatically remove
+temporary files after a backend crash. If disabled, the files will be
+
14 matches
Mail list logo
