Christopher Browne wrote:
> After a long battle with technology, Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>, an earthling, wrote:
>
>>JM wrote:
>>
>>>Hi ALL,
>>>
>>> I was wondering if there is a DB performance reduction if
>>>there are a lot of IDLE processes.
>>>
>>>30786 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>>32504 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>>32596 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 1722 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 1724 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 3881 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 6332 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 6678 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 6700 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 6768 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 8544 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 8873 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 8986 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 9000 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 9010 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 9013 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 9016 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 9019 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>> 9020 ? S 0:00 postgres: user1 gmadb 10.10.10.1 idle
>>>
>
>
>>In my experience not at all, you have to wonder if some of that are
>>"idle in transaction" that are really a pain in the @#$
>
>
> I'd be concerned about "idle" processes insofar as they are holding on
> to _some_ memory that isn't shared.
For "not at all" I was refering the fact that the normal engine work and
maintenances are not affected ( at least your iron shall be able to
support all these connections and processes ).
A long transaction for example can stop the entire engine if for example
a "Vacuum full" remain stuck on some tables locked by that transaction
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
