Re: [HACKERS] Patch to log usage of temporary files - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Patch to log usage of temporary files
Date
Msg-id 16750.1167922578@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Patch to log usage of temporary files  (Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Patch to log usage of temporary files  (Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>)
List pgsql-patches
Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.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.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch to log usage of temporary files
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: wal_checksum = on (default) | off