"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> You sure it's not creating any temp tables? You didn't mention >> revoking TEMP privilege. > They have not been revoked, but I am sure the software publisher > doesn't explicitly create any, and I'd be very surprised if the > monitoring software did. The tables are small enough that it's hard > to believe that the 50MB work_mem would spill to disk, either (if > that matters).
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. > 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. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers