From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)jirotech(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Max connections reached without max connections reached |
Date: | 2021-11-24 01:46:47 |
Message-ID: | 6d4ca538-93b6-9e1b-07d1-e127771d1f92@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/23/21 16:58, James Sewell wrote:
>
> > re: EnterpriseDB yes it is - I'm having this same discussion with
> them
> > in parallel
>
> What version of theirs?
>
> PostgreSQL 11.9 (EnterpriseDB Advanced Server 11.9.18) on
> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat
> 4.8.5-36), 64-bit
>
>
> > re: rundeck, yes - but this is only one of many things
> connecting. it's
> > not doing anything special.
>
> Except sending a stream of connections to the server.
>
> Any idea what they are doing?
>
>
> It's used to trigger ETL jobs. There are other bigger consumers of
> connections - the issue isn't the stream of jobs, that works fine under
> normal operation. The issue is that when jobs stay in "startup" and
> don't enter pg_stat_activity the system spirals downwards and no new
> connections are allowed.
Is there a correlation to these ETL jobs or the other consumers?
If so what are the consumers trying to do at that time?
>
> James
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James Sewell | 2021-11-24 01:51:28 | Re: Max connections reached without max connections reached |
Previous Message | James Sewell | 2021-11-24 00:58:58 | Re: Max connections reached without max connections reached |