Обсуждение: [GENERAL] postgres: dbname dbuser 9.9.9.9[2222] PARSE waiting
Hi folks. Today I had a problem with production's database PostgreSQL version 9.4.4.9. The server have max_connections set to 200, but today I reviewed pg_stat_activity and saw 199 active connections, obviously the server rejected any new connection and the production stopped. I saw another posts with a similar problems, but this was because the pg_xlog was full or disk does'nt write, but the directory and disk had no problems. I just canceled some SELECTs querys and the server returned to normality. Now a monitoring activity of server and I can see some backends like this: postgres 9737 23340 2 14:55 ? 00:00:15 postgres: dbname user 8.8.8.8[37082] idle in transaction postgres 9741 23340 9 14:55 ? 00:00:47 postgres: dbname user 8.8.8.8[54286] idle in transaction Any suggestions? ----- Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará. Rozvo Ware Solutions -- View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/postgres-dbname-dbuser-9-9-9-9-2222-PARSE-waiting-tp5968923.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi folks.
Today I had a problem with production's database PostgreSQL version 9.4.4.9.
The server have max_connections set to 200, but today I reviewed
pg_stat_activity and saw 199 active connections, obviously the server
rejected any new connection and the production stopped.
I saw another posts with a similar problems, but this was because the
pg_xlog was full or disk does'nt write, but the directory and disk had no
problems.
I just canceled some SELECTs querys and the server returned to normality.
Now a monitoring activity of server and I can see some backends like this:
postgres 9737 23340 2 14:55 ? 00:00:15 postgres: dbname user
8.8.8.8[37082] idle in transaction
postgres 9741 23340 9 14:55 ? 00:00:47 postgres: dbname user
8.8.8.8[54286] idle in transaction
Any suggestions?
-----
Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará.
Rozvo Ware Solutions
--
View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/postgres-dbname-dbuser-9- 9-9-9-2222-PARSE-waiting- tp5968923.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
https://pgbouncer.github.io/
--
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
![](http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/01.gif)
postgres 9741 23340 9 14:55 ? 00:00:47 postgres: dbname user
8.8.8.8[54286] idle in transaction
Any suggestions?
On 06/27/2017 01:10 PM, DrakoRod wrote: > Hi folks. > > Today I had a problem with production's database PostgreSQL version 9.4.4.9. > The server have max_connections set to 200, but today I reviewed > pg_stat_activity and saw 199 active connections, obviously the server > rejected any new connection and the production stopped. > > I saw another posts with a similar problems, but this was because the > pg_xlog was full or disk does'nt write, but the directory and disk had no > problems. > > I just canceled some SELECTs querys and the server returned to normality. > Now a monitoring activity of server and I can see some backends like this: > > postgres 9737 23340 2 14:55 ? 00:00:15 postgres: dbname user > 8.8.8.8[37082] idle in transaction > postgres 9741 23340 9 14:55 ? 00:00:47 postgres: dbname user > 8.8.8.8[54286] idle in transaction > > Any suggestions? https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/monitoring-stats.html#PG-STAT-ACTIVITY-VIEW SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity WHERE state = 'idle in transaction'; To get more detail on what is holding these transactions open. > > > > ----- > Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará. > Rozvo Ware Solutions > -- > View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/postgres-dbname-dbuser-9-9-9-9-2222-PARSE-waiting-tp5968923.html > Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On 06/27/2017 01:10 PM, DrakoRod wrote:Hi folks.
Today I had a problem with production's database PostgreSQL version 9.4.4.9.
The server have max_connections set to 200, but today I reviewed
pg_stat_activity and saw 199 active connections, obviously the server
rejected any new connection and the production stopped.
I saw another posts with a similar problems, but this was because the
pg_xlog was full or disk does'nt write, but the directory and disk had no
problems.
I just canceled some SELECTs querys and the server returned to normality.
Now a monitoring activity of server and I can see some backends like this:
postgres 9737 23340 2 14:55 ? 00:00:15 postgres: dbname user
8.8.8.8[37082] idle in transaction
postgres 9741 23340 9 14:55 ? 00:00:47 postgres: dbname user
8.8.8.8[54286] idle in transaction
Any suggestions?
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/monitoring-stats. html#PG-STAT-ACTIVITY-VIEW
SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity WHERE state = 'idle in transaction';
To get more detail on what is holding these transactions open.
-----
Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará.
Rozvo Ware Solutions
--
View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/postgres-dbname-dbuser-9-9 -9-9-2222-PARSE-waiting-tp5968 923.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
His problem is NOT 'idle in transaction' per se. It is all connections are used up.
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
![](http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/01.gif)
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:41:25 -0400 Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> > wrote: > > > On 06/27/2017 01:10 PM, DrakoRod wrote: > > > >> Hi folks. > >> > >> Today I had a problem with production's database PostgreSQL version > >> 9.4.4.9. > >> The server have max_connections set to 200, but today I reviewed > >> pg_stat_activity and saw 199 active connections, obviously the server > >> rejected any new connection and the production stopped. > >> > >> I saw another posts with a similar problems, but this was because the > >> pg_xlog was full or disk does'nt write, but the directory and disk had no > >> problems. > >> > >> I just canceled some SELECTs querys and the server returned to normality. > >> Now a monitoring activity of server and I can see some backends like this: > >> > >> postgres 9737 23340 2 14:55 ? 00:00:15 postgres: dbname user > >> 8.8.8.8[37082] idle in transaction > >> postgres 9741 23340 9 14:55 ? 00:00:47 postgres: dbname user > >> 8.8.8.8[54286] idle in transaction > >> > >> Any suggestions? > >> > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/monitoring-stats. > > html#PG-STAT-ACTIVITY-VIEW > > > > SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity WHERE state = 'idle in transaction'; > > > > To get more detail on what is holding these transactions open. > > > > *His problem is NOT 'idle in transaction' per se. It is all connections are > used up.* > *Hence the need for pg_bouncer for connection pooling.* That assessment lacks enough information to be substantiated. One of the things I've frequently seen happen is applications written with ORMs will create a new connection because the existing connections in the pool are already in a transaction. If his application is not properly committing transactions, an additional pooler layer will not improve on the problem. Hence, what he needs to do first is gather more information and understand exactly what's going on. Of course, if usage has just scaled up to the point where he doesn't have any free connections, then your assessment might be correct. But he hasn't provided enough information to be sure of that. Regardless, lots of "idle in transaction" connections that stick around a long time is a clear sign of application bugs. If they're not the cause of his immediate problem, they will be the cause of problems at some point, so he might as well track them down and fix them. -- PT <wmoran@potentialtech.com>
On 06/27/2017 03:41 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Adrian Klaver > *His problem is NOT 'idle in transaction' per se. It is all connections > are used up.* Not following. The 'idle in transaction' queries are coming in through a connection so having them around is keeping a connection open. Dealing with them will help with the connection count. Using pg_bouncer is an option, but if you have a process that is not properly closing transactions/connections you could get into an arms race between that process and the size of your connection pool. > *Hence the need for pg_bouncer for connection pooling.* > -- > *Melvin Davidson* -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
His problem is NOT 'idle in transaction' per se. It is all connections are used up.Hence the need for pg_bouncer for connection pooling.
Yep, the real problem was all connections are used up. A ps command showed this: postgres 1172 23340 1 13:00 ? 00:01:23 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34024] PARSE waiting postgres 1527 23340 3 13:07 ? 00:02:47 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.2[49193] PARSE waiting postgres 1869 23340 1 13:13 ? 00:01:05 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34209] PARSE waiting postgres 1963 23340 0 13:15 ? 00:00:23 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34244] PARSE waiting postgres 2408 23340 2 13:23 ? 00:01:31 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38324] PARSE waiting postgres 2442 23340 3 13:23 ? 00:02:19 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38359] PARSE waiting postgres 2526 23340 2 13:25 ? 00:01:39 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.2[49994] PARSE waiting postgres 2533 23340 2 13:25 ? 00:02:00 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.4[58916] PARSE waiting postgres 2616 23340 2 13:26 ? 00:01:28 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38496] PARSE waiting postgres 2632 23340 3 13:27 ? 00:02:09 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.2[50088] idle in transaction postgres 2644 23340 0 13:27 ? 00:00:25 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.4[58999] PARSE waiting postgres 2787 23340 0 13:30 ? 00:00:16 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.5[57944] PARSE waiting postgres 2815 23340 1 13:31 ? 00:00:52 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.2[50263] PARSE waiting postgres 2822 23340 0 13:31 ? 00:00:29 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59158] PARSE waiting postgres 2825 23340 1 13:31 ? 00:00:47 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59161] PARSE waiting postgres 2826 23340 0 13:31 ? 00:00:11 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59163] PARSE waiting postgres 2876 23340 0 13:32 ? 00:00:26 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34469] PARSE waiting postgres 2888 23340 0 13:32 ? 00:00:36 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38729] PARSE waiting postgres 2911 23340 0 13:33 ? 00:00:11 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.2[50352] PARSE waiting postgres 2912 23340 0 13:33 ? 00:00:36 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.2[50353] PARSE waiting postgres 2916 23340 0 13:33 ? 00:00:30 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38750] PARSE waiting postgres 2922 23340 0 13:33 ? 00:00:33 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59238] PARSE waiting postgres 2927 23340 1 13:33 ? 00:00:38 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59242] PARSE waiting postgres 3012 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:03 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.2[50439] PARSE waiting postgres 3017 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:01 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38833] PARSE waiting postgres 3018 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:27 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38834] PARSE waiting postgres 3020 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:24 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59318] PARSE waiting postgres 3026 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:04 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59323] PARSE waiting postgres 3033 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:15 postgres: dbsomething dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59328] PARSE waiting When I ran *SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity*, the state in all queries was active and most were SELECTs, then the server did not open new connections. I canceled many queries (only SELECTs) and server back to normal. I understand that the principal problem probably are the application, of that I'm sure, but in the process debug. The best way to avoid or "fix" this are with connections pool like pgbouncer? How is the most secure way to return connections without restart service? I never had this problem, the idle connections is the normal in almost every database I managed, but this is new for me. Thanks for your help! ----- Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará. Rozvo Ware Solutions -- View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/postgres-dbname-dbuser-9-9-9-9-2222-PARSE-waiting-tp5968923p5968960.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 06/27/2017 04:16 PM, DrakoRod wrote: > Yep, the real problem was all connections are used up. A ps command showed > this: > > postgres 1172 23340 1 13:00 ? 00:01:23 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34024] PARSE waiting > postgres 1527 23340 3 13:07 ? 00:02:47 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.2[49193] PARSE waiting Hmm, the above is new one to me. Some searching found this: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1282602153-sup-6272%40alvh.no-ip.org "It means the parse phase is waiting for a lock. You can see exactly what it's waiting for by looking at pg_locks "WHERE NOT GRANTED"." If you have not already, you might want to log connections/disconnections for more insight: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/runtime-config-logging.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-LOGGING-WHAT > > > When I ran *SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity*, the state in all queries was > active and most were SELECTs, then the server did not open new connections. > I canceled many queries (only SELECTs) and server back to normal. > > I understand that the principal problem probably are the application, of > that I'm sure, but in the process debug. The best way to avoid or "fix" this > are with connections pool like pgbouncer? How is the most secure way to > return connections without restart service? Close the connection. > > I never had this problem, the idle connections is the normal in almost every > database I managed, but this is new for me. FYI there is a difference between 'idle' connections and 'idle in transaction', not sure which one you are referring to. See below for more info: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/monitoring-stats.html#PG-STAT-ACTIVITY-VIEW The bottom line is connections are resources that need to be managed. To better able to do that is going to require some detective work to determine what is generating the connections and for what purpose. > > Thanks for your help! > > > > > ----- > Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará. > Rozvo Ware Solutions -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:16:53 -0700 (MST) DrakoRod <drakoflames@hotmail.com> wrote: > Yep, the real problem was all connections are used up. A ps command showed > this: > > postgres 1172 23340 1 13:00 ? 00:01:23 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34024] PARSE waiting > postgres 1527 23340 3 13:07 ? 00:02:47 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.2[49193] PARSE waiting > postgres 1869 23340 1 13:13 ? 00:01:05 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34209] PARSE waiting > postgres 1963 23340 0 13:15 ? 00:00:23 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34244] PARSE waiting > postgres 2408 23340 2 13:23 ? 00:01:31 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38324] PARSE waiting > postgres 2442 23340 3 13:23 ? 00:02:19 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38359] PARSE waiting > postgres 2526 23340 2 13:25 ? 00:01:39 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.2[49994] PARSE waiting > postgres 2533 23340 2 13:25 ? 00:02:00 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.4[58916] PARSE waiting > postgres 2616 23340 2 13:26 ? 00:01:28 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38496] PARSE waiting > postgres 2632 23340 3 13:27 ? 00:02:09 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.2[50088] idle in transaction > postgres 2644 23340 0 13:27 ? 00:00:25 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.4[58999] PARSE waiting > postgres 2787 23340 0 13:30 ? 00:00:16 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.5[57944] PARSE waiting > postgres 2815 23340 1 13:31 ? 00:00:52 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.2[50263] PARSE waiting > postgres 2822 23340 0 13:31 ? 00:00:29 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59158] PARSE waiting > postgres 2825 23340 1 13:31 ? 00:00:47 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59161] PARSE waiting > postgres 2826 23340 0 13:31 ? 00:00:11 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59163] PARSE waiting > postgres 2876 23340 0 13:32 ? 00:00:26 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.1[34469] PARSE waiting > postgres 2888 23340 0 13:32 ? 00:00:36 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38729] PARSE waiting > postgres 2911 23340 0 13:33 ? 00:00:11 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.2[50352] PARSE waiting > postgres 2912 23340 0 13:33 ? 00:00:36 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.2[50353] PARSE waiting > postgres 2916 23340 0 13:33 ? 00:00:30 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38750] PARSE waiting > postgres 2922 23340 0 13:33 ? 00:00:33 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59238] PARSE waiting > postgres 2927 23340 1 13:33 ? 00:00:38 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59242] PARSE waiting > postgres 3012 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:03 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.2[50439] PARSE waiting > postgres 3017 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:01 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38833] PARSE waiting > postgres 3018 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:27 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.3[38834] PARSE waiting > postgres 3020 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:24 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59318] PARSE waiting > postgres 3026 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:04 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59323] PARSE waiting > postgres 3033 23340 0 13:35 ? 00:00:15 postgres: dbsomething > dbsomething 8.8.8.4[59328] PARSE waiting > > > When I ran *SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity*, the state in all queries was > active and most were SELECTs, then the server did not open new connections. > I canceled many queries (only SELECTs) and server back to normal. > > I understand that the principal problem probably are the application, of > that I'm sure, but in the process debug. The best way to avoid or "fix" this > are with connections pool like pgbouncer? How is the most secure way to > return connections without restart service? There are various timeout settings that can be configured: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/runtime-config-client.html idle_in_transation_session_timeout is probably the one you want to enable. It's likely that your application developers will start to complain about database "errors" once you enable that, as connections will get killed and cause errors on the application. You'll need to work to educate your developers on how to fix their application so the situation stops happening. -- PT <wmoran@potentialtech.com>
To expand information, the application are written in Grails on wildfly with pool connections. I didn't have time to check pg_locks with detail, I'll configure the connections logs to monitoring those. I can't close connections on the application side. How I close connections on the database side? With pg_terminate_backend, pg_cancel_backend or exists other function? I didn't want terminate backends because all connections state was active. I refer only to "idle" because almost in every database that I've saw the application doesn't close correctly the connections. If are "idle in transaction" is not normal. Your right Adrian, I need to know why the connections are not closing properly. I can't apply idle_in_transation_session_timeout because the version of PostgreSQL is 9.4.4 and the paramater not yet i'ts included. But sounds good the upgrade. Thanks for your help! ----- Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará. Rozvo Ware Solutions -- View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/postgres-dbname-dbuser-9-9-9-9-2222-PARSE-waiting-tp5968923p5969262.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I can't close connections on the application side. How I close connections
on the database side? With pg_terminate_backend, pg_cancel_backend or exists
other function? I didn't want terminate backends because all connections
state was active.
I refer only to "idle" because almost in every database that I've saw the
application doesn't close correctly the connections. If are "idle in
transaction" is not normal.
On 06/29/2017 10:03 AM, DrakoRod wrote: > To expand information, the application are written in Grails on wildfly with > pool connections. Do you control the app? The app has a pooling component and you still are having problems, have you looked at what the pooler is actually doing? > > I didn't have time to check pg_locks with detail, I'll configure the > connections logs to monitoring those. > > I can't close connections on the application side. How I close connections > on the database side? With pg_terminate_backend, pg_cancel_backend or exists > other function? I didn't want terminate backends because all connections > state was active. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/functions-admin.html#FUNCTIONS-ADMIN-SIGNAL "pg_cancel_backend(pid int) boolean Cancel a backend's current query. You can execute this against another backend that has exactly the same role as the user calling the function. In all other cases, you must be a superuser. ...The process ID of an active backend can be found from the pid column of the pg_stat_activity view, ..." > > I refer only to "idle" because almost in every database that I've saw the > application doesn't close correctly the connections. If are "idle in > transaction" is not normal. Not sure what the above means. Are you saying the application you refer to above has a history of not correctly closing connections or are you talking in general terms about applications interacting with databases. > > Your right Adrian, I need to know why the connections are not closing > properly. > > I can't apply idle_in_transation_session_timeout because the version of > PostgreSQL is 9.4.4 and the paramater not yet i'ts included. But sounds good > the upgrade. > > Thanks for your help! > > > > > ----- > Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará. > Rozvo Ware Solutions > -- > View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/postgres-dbname-dbuser-9-9-9-9-2222-PARSE-waiting-tp5968923p5969262.html > Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On 06/29/2017 10:03 AM, DrakoRod wrote:To expand information, the application are written in Grails on wildfly with
pool connections.
Do you control the app?
The app has a pooling component and you still are having problems, have you looked at what the pooler is actually doing?
I didn't have time to check pg_locks with detail, I'll configure the
connections logs to monitoring those.
I can't close connections on the application side. How I close connections
on the database side? With pg_terminate_backend, pg_cancel_backend or exists
other function? I didn't want terminate backends because all connections
state was active.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/functions-admin. html#FUNCTIONS-ADMIN-SIGNAL
"pg_cancel_backend(pid int) boolean Cancel a backend's current query. You can execute this against another backend that has exactly the same role as the user calling the function. In all other cases, you must be a superuser.
...The process ID of an active backend can be found from the pid column of the pg_stat_activity view, ..."
I refer only to "idle" because almost in every database that I've saw the
application doesn't close correctly the connections. If are "idle in
transaction" is not normal.
Not sure what the above means. Are you saying the application you refer to above has a history of not correctly closing connections or are you talking in general terms about applications interacting with databases.
Your right Adrian, I need to know why the connections are not closing
properly.
I can't apply idle_in_transation_session_timeout because the version of
PostgreSQL is 9.4.4 and the paramater not yet i'ts included. But sounds good
the upgrade.
Thanks for your help!
-----
Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará.
Rozvo Ware Solutions
--
View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/postgres-dbname-dbuser-9-9 -9-9-2222-PARSE-waiting-tp5968 923p5969262.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.The second is a Linux script "kill_long_idles.sh" that will kill any connection that is 'idle in transaction' for longer than max_time.CAVEAT EMPTOR! in PG 9.6 the "CASE WHEN waiting ..." needs to be commented out..The first is a SQL query -> current_queries.sql 'idle in transaction' will appear in the "state" column.DrakoRod,If you are concerned that the application is leaving connections 'idle in transaction', I've attached two files that may be helpful to you.
Currently it is set to 30 minutes, but you can adjust to your desire.
Just run it from a root cron job.Don't forget to
chmod +x kill_long_idles.sh--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
![](http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/01.gif)
Вложения
> Do you control the app? Nop Just I know how it's developed. > The app has a pooling component and you still are having problems, have > you looked at what the pooler is actually doing? As far as I know, the wildfly's jdbc pool. No really I don't know what are doing. I suspect that problem is that in DAO's not are closing the sessions or not beginning transactions properly. I going to ask them send me the logfile or I'll could verify the pool behavior. > Not sure what the above means. Are you saying the application you refer > to above has a history of not correctly closing connections or are you > talking in general terms about applications interacting with databases. Sorry, it's not like that, just was a comment, The problem I have is with a specific application. > I've attached two files that may be helpful to you. Melvin , Thanks for the scripts! I owe one! I have another question, I've was reading about the lock_timeout, Somehow this parameter will help or could affect all the behaviour? Thanks! ----- Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará. Rozvo Ware Solutions -- View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/postgres-dbname-dbuser-9-9-9-9-2222-PARSE-waiting-tp5968923p5969552.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> Do you control the app?
Nop Just I know how it's developed.
> The app has a pooling component and you still are having problems, have
> you looked at what the pooler is actually doing?
As far as I know, the wildfly's jdbc pool. No really I don't know what are
doing. I suspect that problem is that in DAO's not are closing the sessions
or not beginning transactions properly. I going to ask them send me the
logfile or I'll could verify the pool behavior.
> Not sure what the above means. Are you saying the application you refer
> to above has a history of not correctly closing connections or are you
> talking in general terms about applications interacting with databases.
Sorry, it's not like that, just was a comment, The problem I have is with a
specific application.
> I've attached two files that may be helpful to you.
Melvin , Thanks for the scripts! I owe one!
I have another question, I've was reading about the lock_timeout, Somehow
this parameter will help or could affect all the behaviour?
Thanks!
-----
Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará.
Rozvo Ware Solutions
--
View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/postgres-dbname-dbuser-9- 9-9-9-2222-PARSE-waiting- tp5968923p5969552.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>I've was reading about the lock_timeout, Somehow this parameter will help or could affect all the behaviour?
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/runtime-config-client.html
- lock_timeout (integer)
Abort any statement that waits longer than the specified number of milliseconds while attempting to acquire a lock on a table, index, row, or other database object. The time limit applies separately to each lock acquisition attempt. The limit applies both to explicit locking requests (such as LOCK TABLE, or SELECT FOR UPDATE without NOWAIT) and to implicitly-acquired locks. If log_min_error_statement is set to ERROR or lower, the statement that timed out will be logged. A value of zero (the default) turns this off.
Unlike statement_timeout, this timeout can only occur while waiting for locks. Note that if statement_timeout is nonzero, it is rather pointless to set lock_timeout to the same or larger value, since the statement timeout would always trigger first.
Setting lock_timeout in postgresql.conf is not recommended because it would affect all sessions.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-connection.html
--
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
![](http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/01.gif)
You're right I have forgotten to say, the OS is RHEL 7. Actually I'm reading about. Thanks! ----- Dame un poco de fe, eso me bastará. Rozvo Ware Solutions -- View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/postgres-dbname-dbuser-9-9-9-9-2222-PARSE-waiting-tp5968923p5969564.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.