Ahhhh... so if the script that has the connection open would only terminate the transaction, then vacuum wouldn't get
behind?
I actually made a change in that script to rollback when the script doesn't need the changes in the transaction,
hopefullyallowing vacuum to do its thing.
Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of John R Pierce
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 2:21 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] <IDLE> connections and cpu consumption
On 11/09/11 10:35 AM, Gauthier, Dave wrote:
>
> I'm using "selcet procpid,current_query from pg_stat_activity" to
> monitor activity during times when "top" is showing many PG procs with
> very high cpu usage numbers (all cores at or above 90%). Some of
> these are procs that map to PG connections with current_query = <IDLE>.
>
> What scenarios could explain a process identified as IDLE consuming
> lots of CPU?
>
> More clues... In parallel with these was a user that was making a
> series of insert/delete/update commands that fire off triggers that
> generate more DML recursively. Some of the idles are "<IDLE> in
> transaction".
>
perhaps you just happened to sample pg_stat_activity in between queries?
<IDLE> should be just that. <IDLE> in transaction is equally idle, but
there's an open transaction. if these processes STAY idle in
transaction for too long they can cause vacuum to get behind, thats
typically hours-to-days before this is a problem in most scenarios.
--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
