"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I'd hope that wasn't what's happening... is the backend smart enough to > know not to fsync anything involved with the temp table? The catalog entries required for it have to be fsync'd, unless you enjoy putting your entire database at risk (a bad block in pg_class, say, would probably take out more than one table). It's interesting to speculate about keeping such catalog entries in child tables of pg_class etc that are themselves temp tables. Resolving the apparent circularity of this is left as an exercise for the reader. regards, tom lane
