On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that it is not worth mentioning specifically for > temp_file_limit; to me that seems to be a hole with no bottom. We'll > end up arguing about which GUCs should mention it specifically and > there will be no end to it.
I don't think that you need it for any other GUC, so I really don't know why you're concerned about a slippery slope. The only other resource GUC that is scoped per session that I can see is temp_buffers, but that doesn't need to change, since parallel workers cannot use temp_buffers directly in practice. max_files_per_process is already clearly per process, so no change needed there either. I don't see a case other than temp_file_limit that appears to be even marginally in need of a specific note. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
