[Spacewalk-list] [Spacewalk-devel] I think I found the root cause of the PostgreSQL Idle in transaction connection build up.

[Jonathan Scott]

Paul, you stud! I'm one of the ones reporting this same issue, and I will
happily volunteer my 60-instance Spacewalk 1.7 install for testing. I'll
implement your fix and report back on my findings.

- Jonathan

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Paul Robert Marino <prmarino1 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Well you are right there is nothing in the change log that idicates that
> this issue existed or how its fixed.
> But as I said it seems to fix it there is probably a side effect fix that
> was not planed but seems to work.
> The results are rediculously obvious initialy now honestly I think it
> needs a few days of testing to prove it, and I would like for others to
> confirm it but from my initial test it on one of my development instances
> it looks good. I would like other people to test it because I'm not using
> monitoring on that instance and I only have a few systems attached to it
> but the difference is so obvious there is deffinitly something there.
> By the way I've seen the change log betwean 701to 702 but I haven't seen
> the change log betwean 702 and 703 and I looked its not on their site or in
> the source package as far as I could initialy tell.
>
> While I admit I can't point to a reason in the change log why, it at least
> initialy seems to work. I think if any thing it may be a compound
> correction of multiple bugs that may of fixed a larger harder to pinpoint
> issue.
>  On Nov 6, 2012 12:01 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul Robert Marino <prmarino1 at gmail.com> writes:
>> > Ive been doing some testing and I am fairly positive I found out why
>> > the number of connections in PostgreSQL increases and its not a
>> > spacewalk bug at all.
>> > It looks like its a JDBC bug [ and is fixed in 8.4-703 ]
>>
>> This is really interesting, but I looked through the upstream commit
>> logs, and I can't see any patches between 8.4-701 and 8.4-703 that look
>> like they'd cure a "connection leak" such as you're describing.  There
>> are a couple of fixes for possible loss-of-protocol-sync issues, but it
>> doesn't seem like that would result in silent leakage; the symptoms
>> would be pretty obvious.
>>
>> Have you poked into the client-side state to see what that end thinks
>> it's doing with the idle connections?
>>
>>                         regards, tom lane
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spacewalk-list mailing list
> Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-list/attachments/20121106/28d32f34/attachment.htm>