Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
> 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.
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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Zdenek Kotala||Date: 2009-11-30 19:57:22|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add solaris path for docbook COLLATEINDEX|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-11-30 19:46:36|
|Subject: Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux |