From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Torsten Förtsch <torsten(dot)foertsch(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Pgbouncer |
Date: | 2015-11-30 21:50:51 |
Message-ID: | CAEfWYyxbRgjcy60nSZ3csE2PfLoZwFrJ960hh0B7eBKtpULsDA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Do you have any clients connected that are idle in transaction?
Cheers,
Steve
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Torsten Förtsch <torsten(dot)foertsch(at)gmx(dot)net>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question. If not,
> please point me to it.
>
> I am trying out the new pgbouncer (latest git). "SHOW SERVERS" is
> telling me 2 connections in "active" state. Both show
> connect_time=2015-11-30 18:58:30. Request_time is 19:01:35 and 20:56:36.
> Both use pool_mode=transaction.
>
> Server_lifetime=600. And now is 21:38:55.
>
> Shouldn't those connections have been closed long ago?
>
> I also checked on the backend. The backend processes are there, are idle
> and query_start and state_change times match the request_times above.
>
> Also, since pool_mode=transaction, why are these connections "active"?
>
> Thanks,
> Torsten
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Torsten Förtsch | 2015-11-30 21:56:49 | Re: Pgbouncer |
Previous Message | Torsten Förtsch | 2015-11-30 21:46:01 | Pgbouncer |