From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Frits Jalvingh <jal@etc.to>
Cc: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: temp_file_limit?
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2022 14:28:32 -0500
Message-ID: <462805.1671391712@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKhTGFX7uH3bK-NTcOB06+2TA0j5Czu3YWrepD7v8VNT45d99Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKhTGFXmSBSXYjBXVGiQ_VO7Wz14SrNy2sQOU8KKH3priWKWUQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20221218155705.GT1153@telsasoft.com>
<CAKhTGFVwMLCL04hU6Q9rvwg0q2C9aCrj3KKOcgPjL-JRQwTDUg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKhTGFX7uH3bK-NTcOB06+2TA0j5Czu3YWrepD7v8VNT45d99Q@mail.gmail.com>
Frits Jalvingh <jal@etc.to> writes:
> Just to be clear: my real question is: why is temp_file_limit not working
> at the specified size?
I've not looked at that code lately, but I strongly suspect that
it's implemented in such a way that it's a per-process limit, not a
per-session limit. So each parallel worker could use up that much
space.
It's also possible that you've found an actual bug, but without
a reproducer case nobody's going to take that possibility too
seriously. We're unlikely to accept "the limit should work
across multiple processes" as a valid bug though. That would
require a vastly more complicated implementation.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jal@etc.to, pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: temp_file_limit?
In-Reply-To: <462805.1671391712@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox