Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > It's not about the size of a temp table, because writes to the > temp table itself aren't WAL-logged. However, the system catalog > entries for a temp table *are* WAL-logged. Definitely not issuing any CREATE TEMP statements of any kind, unless the JDBC driver is doing that under the covers. >> Pretty much every read only JDBC connection seems to be holding >> open a deleted WAL file on my Linux box, but it would take pretty >> pessimal timing for each connection to be holding open a >> different one -- I see that many connections share a deleted WAL >> file. > > This still seems a bit improbable to me. There has to be > something causing those sessions to touch WAL, and the > dirty-buffer scenario doesn't seem reliable enough. > > [ thinks... ] How about SELECT FOR UPDATE or SELECT FOR SHARE? > Those cause WAL writes. Definitely not. Probably best not to worry about it until I can play around with some Java test code to see what it takes to cause the connection to open the WAL. I'll post when I've had a chance to try that. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
