Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-14 Thread henry
On Mon, January 14, 2008 12:49 pm, henry wrote: > WRT the origional question: why is tcp_keepalives_idle being ignored > (whether with SET or in postgresql.conf)? - ie, SHOW ALL says it's 0 no > matter what I do. A quick follow-on with more info to my own post. The culprit in my case was a loc

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-14 Thread henry
On Mon, January 14, 2008 5:46 pm, Tom Lane wrote: >> So,... this appears to be dblink related after all. I'll be trying >> explicit open/exec/close. Weird that dblink_exec in a trigger doesn't >> release resources. > > Hmm, this is the transient-connection form of dblink? If so, that would > be

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-14 Thread Tom Lane
"henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The culprit in my case was a local trigger firing on INSERTs using > dblink_exec() without 'host=127.0.0.1'. Bad news though, even _with_ > 'host=127.0.0.1' the connections do not idle timeout. They just hang > around waiting for the rapture. > So,... this a

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-14 Thread Tom Lane
"henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > WRT the origional question: why is tcp_keepalives_idle being ignored > (whether with SET or in postgresql.conf)? - ie, SHOW ALL says it's 0 no > matter what I do. I think you're looking at it in a session that's connecting over a Unix socket. You need to be

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-14 Thread henry
On Sun, January 13, 2008 6:53 pm, henry wrote: > On Sun, January 13, 2008 7:25 pm, Tom Lane wrote: >> Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:40:34AM +0200, henry wrote: lsof doesn't tell me what's talking to PG through /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432 either.

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-13 Thread henry
On Sun, January 13, 2008 7:25 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:40:34AM +0200, henry wrote: >>> lsof doesn't tell me what's talking to PG through /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432 >>> either. Maybe I'm not understanding exactly how /tmp/.s.PG

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-13 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:40:34AM +0200, henry wrote: >> lsof doesn't tell me what's talking to PG through /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432 >> either. Maybe I'm not understanding exactly how /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432 is >> used - what would connect to PG via a doma

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-13 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:40:34AM +0200, henry wrote: > > This is all irrelevant to your real problem, to judge by the rest of > > the thread, but I'm curious. > > I did in fact find a leak in long-lived procs (some of which can run for > days) - but squashing that did not make my problem go away

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-13 Thread henry
On Sat, January 12, 2008 6:50 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > "henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I have tried setting tcp_keepalives_idle = 120 (eg), then restarting PG, >> but SHOW ALL; shows tcp_keepalives_idle=0 (ignoring my setting). > > Just FYI, this is the expected behavior on platforms where th

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-12 Thread Tom Lane
"henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have tried setting tcp_keepalives_idle = 120 (eg), then restarting PG, > but SHOW ALL; shows tcp_keepalives_idle=0 (ignoring my setting). Just FYI, this is the expected behavior on platforms where the kernel doesn't allow adjustment of the TCP keepalive para

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-12 Thread henry
On Sat, January 12, 2008 1:20 pm, Gregory Stark wrote: > "henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> tcp_keepalives_interval and tcp_keepalives_count I have left on default. >> After a few hours worth of running, theres a few thousand idle postgres >> procs, and they're all idle... > > Are you sure th

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-12 Thread Jean-Michel Pouré
> We have a very busy setup using multiple clusters, slony, etc. My problem > relates to the number of postgres procs increasing, and not decreasing > when idle. I eventually end up with thousands of idle processes listening > on /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432 and not quitting (eventually bumping into > max_

Re: [GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-12 Thread Gregory Stark
"henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > tcp_keepalives_interval and tcp_keepalives_count I have left on default. > After a few hours worth of running, theres a few thousand idle postgres > procs, and they're all idle... Are you sure the clients are actually gone? tcp keepalives are only going to h

[GENERAL] tcp_keepalives_idle ignored

2008-01-12 Thread henry
Hello all, PG: 8.2.4 We have a very busy setup using multiple clusters, slony, etc. My problem relates to the number of postgres procs increasing, and not decreasing when idle. I eventually end up with thousands of idle processes listening on /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432 and not quitting (eventually bum