| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Delao, Darryl W" <ddelao(at)ou(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "'pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [NOVICE] General Performance questions |
| Date: | 2003-03-10 15:45:26 |
| Message-ID: | 17571.1047311126@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-novice |
"Delao, Darryl W" <ddelao(at)ou(dot)edu> writes:
> I will have anywhere from 5 to 7 of these going at any given time. However
> most say TIME_WAIT instead of established.
TIME_WAIT is a closed connection; the kernel is only remembering it for
a few seconds in case the other end requests a retransmission of the
last few outgoing bytes. This is not blocking you from creating new
sessions.
Better ways to keep track of active database sessions are grepping the
output of "ps" for postgres processes, or watching the pg_stat_activity
system view.
> Also, is there a way to make the TIME_WAIT status shorter.
Not without violating the TCP specs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dwayne Miller | 2003-03-10 16:00:22 | Determining if table exists before dropping |
| Previous Message | Delao, Darryl W | 2003-03-10 15:22:25 | General Performance questions |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Crawford | 2003-03-10 16:16:21 | Re: [NOVICE] General Performance questions |
| Previous Message | Delao, Darryl W | 2003-03-10 15:22:25 | General Performance questions |