Re: temporary file size clarification - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: temporary file size clarification
Date
Msg-id 77B1C264-8B26-484A-9FE2-8DE82C71EAE4@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: temporary file size clarification  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: temporary file size clarification  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-docs
> On 23 Nov 2022, at 20:43, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:26:38AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/runtime-config-logging.html
>> Description:
>>
>> The setting log_temp_files will enable logging of the usage of temporary
>> files, including their size in the log files.  The setting is given in
>> kilobytes, which is clearly documented.  However, I could not find any clear
>> documentation that describes the unit of size that is used in the logfiles
>> themselves, the log line is something like "profiles@profiles LOG:
>> temporary file: path "base/pgsql_tmp/pgsql_tmp31863.1", size 3137536" but
>> there is no size unit in the logfile or in the settings documentation.  Can
>> you add whether the log line is in bytes/kilobytes/megabytes?
>
> Uh, I believe it is simply in bytes.

It is, the relevant code path for the logging is:

   if ((size / 1024) >= log_temp_files)
       ereport(LOG,
               (errmsg("temporary file: path \"%s\", size %lu",
                       path, (unsigned long) size)));

I don't think it's a bad idea to specify the unit in the documentation though,
as suggested by the OP.  Since the setting considers a value without unit as
kb, and the logged value is without unit, there is room for confusion.

How about something like the attached?

--
Daniel Gustafsson        https://vmware.com/


Attachment

pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Kirk Wolak
Date:
Subject: Re: nextval parameter is not clear
Next
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: nextval parameter is not clear