On 2021/10/10 1:25, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 9:42 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> I doubt there's much confusion here - crashes are treated the same. I think
>> the fix would be to say "server crash" rather than backend crash.
>
> IIUC, the "server crash" includes any backend, auxiliary process,
> postmaster crash i.e. database cluster/instance crash. The commit
> cd91de0d1 especially added the temp file cleanup support if any
> backend or auxiliary process (except syslogger and stats collector)
Also the startup process should be in this exception list?
> crashes. The temp file cleanup in postmaster crash does exist prior to
> the commit cd91de0d1.
>
> When we add the description about the new GUC introduced by the commit
> cd91de0d1, let's be clear as to which crash triggers the new temp file
> cleanup path.
If we really want to add this information, the description of
restart_after_crash seems more proper place to do that in.
remove_temp_files_after_crash works only when the processes are
reinitialized because restart_after_crash is enabled.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
