Re: idle processes

> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:43:39 -0500
> From: Robert Paulsen <robert(at)paulsenonline(dot)net>
> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: idle processes
> Message-ID:
<200408142343(dot)39360(dot)robert(at)paulsenonline(dot)net>
>
> On Saturday 14 August 2004 11:17 pm, CSN wrote:
> > I'm using regular pg_connect's. The processes
> > eventually went away - was just wondering why
they'd
> > stick around.
> >
>
> Well, unless I misunderstand, when a script ends the
connection should go away
> and I think that means the postgres process
supporting it should also go
> away. Is it possible your script is not ending or is
in some kind of loop?
>
> I asked about persistent connections because I
believe they are supposed to
> hang around after the script ends and because I
noticed the behavior you
> mentioned ("extraneous" postgres processes) while
experimenting with them.
> With regular non-persistent connections I don't see
those long-lived
> processes.
>
> (Aside from the point of your question, it seems to
me persistent are somewhat
> useless since you can't close them when you are done
with them.)
>
> --
> Robert C. Paulsen, Jr.
> robert(at)paulsenonline(dot)net

The scripts don't appear to be hanging around. The
only other time I've seen idle processes back up was
when another query on the same table was taking a long
time (don't know why they'd back up either since
postgres doesn't use table locking like mysql). But
that wasn't happening in this case. I'm just curious
about this behavior - it doesn't appear to be causing
any significant problems in this case.

CSN

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail