Re: [HACKERS] Patch to log usage of temporary files

Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>
> > Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> writes:
> > > Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> > >>> Might be more robust to say
> > >>> if (trace_temp_files >= 0)
> >
> > > I specified in the GUC config that minimum allowable value is -1.
> >
> > I'd still tend to go with Andrew's suggestion because it makes this
> > particular bit of code self-defending against bad values. Yes, it's
> > reasonably safe given that bit of coding way over yonder in guc.c,
> > but there's no particularly good reason why this code has to depend
> > on that to avoid doing something stupid. And it's easier to understand
> > too --- you don't have to go looking in guc.c to convince yourself it's
> > safe.
>
> Ahh ... well, I've probably already argued about it more than it's worth.
> The patch is easy enough to adjust, find attached.

I have applied a modified version of your patch. I renamed the
parameter to 'log_temp_files', for consistency, added documentation, and
improved the wording, particularly mentioning that the logging happens
at file deletion time.

Thanks.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +