On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 04:38:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- David Kerr writes:
- > Looks like it was a query that was running. once my developer killed it the
CPU went back down.
- > I'm a little surprised by that, the backend process for that developer
wasn't taking up a lot of CPU,
- > just th
David Kerr writes:
> Looks like it was a query that was running. once my developer killed it the
> CPU went back down.
> I'm a little surprised by that, the backend process for that developer wasn't
> taking up a lot of CPU,
> just the postmaster itself.
The backtrace you showed was most defini
Looks like it was a query that was running. once my developer killed it the CPU
went back down.
I'm a little surprised by that, the backend process for that developer wasn't
taking up a lot of CPU,
just the postmaster itself.
Any idea why that would be?
Thanks
Dave
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:30 PM, David Kerr wrote:
> Postmaster's been spinning at 99/100% for a few hours.
>
What does "select * from pg_stat_activity" show you? Look for your
long(est) running query.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to yo
