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

Fri Nov 9 20:55:35 UTC 2012

Are you seeing the same issue in 1.8? I was hoping a fresh install and
profile migration would put me in the clear.

- Jonathan

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Paul Robert Marino <prmarino1 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Yea I'm seeing the same thing on my development instance.
> While it doesn't completely solove the issue it seems to make it manageble
> for people still running 1.7. Without setting a rediculous number of max
> connection in postgresql. I still haven't had a chance to compare with 1.8
> but I. Sould be able to start testing that soon.
> On Nov 9, 2012 11:03 AM, "Jonathan Scott" <lists at xistenz.org> wrote:
>
>> Update:
>>
>> The system still seems to be managing the "idle in transaction" processes
>> much better than before. While the number fluctuates (its in the 30s
>> today), it doesn't appear to be a detriment to the application as it was
>> once before.
>>
>> - Jonathan
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Jonathan Scott <lists at xistenz.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Yea; after my nightly errata check, my "idle in transaction" processes
>>> climbed up to 50 and has hung there all morning. The only real noticeable
>>> change is that the app was actually functional this morning after the
>>> errata load vs. hung with maxed out apache processes. I'll keep running
>>> under this configuration for the remainder of the week.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Paul Robert Marino <prmarino1 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well after letting it run for 24 hours Ive found it doesn't completely
>>>> eliminate them but it has reduced them significantly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Wojtak, Greg (Superfly)
>>>> <GregWojtak at quickenloans.com> wrote:
>>>> > Just sayin', I haven't seen these in the two days since I upgraded to
>>>> spacewalk 1.8…
>>>> >
>>>> > If they do appear, I wouldn't mind testing either.  I've got a few
>>>> hundred servers on our spacewalk instance, along with a proxy,  to help
>>>> stress it with.
>>>> >
>>>> > Greg Wojtak
>>>> > Sr. Unix Systems Engineer
>>>> > Office: (313) 373-4306
>>>> > Cell: (734) 718-8472
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > From: Jonathan Scott <lists at xistenz.org<mailto:lists at xistenz.org>>
>>>> > Reply-To: "lists at xistenz.org<mailto:lists at xistenz.org>" <
>>>> lists at xistenz.org<mailto:lists at xistenz.org>>, "
>>>> spacewalk-list at redhat.com<mailto:spacewalk-list at redhat.com>" <
>>>> spacewalk-list at redhat.com<mailto:spacewalk-list at redhat.com>>
>>>> > Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 1:39 PM
>>>> > To: "spacewalk-list at redhat.com<mailto:spacewalk-list at redhat.com>" <
>>>> spacewalk-list at redhat.com<mailto:spacewalk-list at redhat.com>>
>>>> > Cc: Tom Lane <tgl at redhat.com<mailto:tgl at redhat.com>>, "
>>>> spacewalk-devel at redhat.com<mailto:spacewalk-devel at redhat.com>" <
>>>> spacewalk-devel at redhat.com<mailto:spacewalk-devel at redhat.com>>
>>>> > Subject: Re: [Spacewalk-list] [Spacewalk-devel] I think I found the
>>>> root cause of the PostgreSQL Idle in transaction connection build up.
>>>> >
>>>> > 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<mailto: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<mailto:
>>>> tgl at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>> > Paul Robert Marino <prmarino1 at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:Spacewalk-list at redhat.com>
>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Spacewalk-list mailing list
>>>> > Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Spacewalk-list mailing list
>>>> Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20121109/97a8e5fc/attachment.htm>