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?
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Frits Jalvingh <jal@etc.to>
	message dated "Sun, 18 Dec 2022 18:29:41 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <462804.1671391712.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2022 14:28:32 -0500
Message-ID: <462805.1671391712@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/462805.1671391712%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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