Ahhhh... so if the script that has the connection open would only terminate the transaction, then vacuum wouldn't get behind? I actually made a change in that script to rollback when the script doesn't need the changes in the transaction, hopefully allowing vacuum to do its thing. Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John R Pierce Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 2:21 PM To: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: <IDLE> connections and cpu consumption On 11/09/11 10:35 AM, Gauthier, Dave wrote: > > I'm using "selcet procpid,current_query from pg_stat_activity" to > monitor activity during times when "top" is showing many PG procs with > very high cpu usage numbers (all cores at or above 90%). Some of > these are procs that map to PG connections with current_query = <IDLE>. > > What scenarios could explain a process identified as IDLE consuming > lots of CPU? > > More clues... In parallel with these was a user that was making a > series of insert/delete/update commands that fire off triggers that > generate more DML recursively. Some of the idles are "<IDLE> in > transaction". > perhaps you just happened to sample pg_stat_activity in between queries? <IDLE> should be just that. <IDLE> in transaction is equally idle, but there's an open transaction. if these processes STAY idle in transaction for too long they can cause vacuum to get behind, thats typically hours-to-days before this is a problem in most scenarios. -- john r pierce N 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
