Tom Lane <tgl@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
