| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik van Zijst <erik(dot)van(dot)zijst(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Borislav Ivanov <bivanov(at)atlassian(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "Vasudevan, Ramya" <ramya(dot)vasudevan(at)classmates(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: max_connections reached in postgres 9.3.3 |
| Date: | 2014-06-20 14:17:16 |
| Message-ID: | 3743.1403273836@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Erik van Zijst <erik(dot)van(dot)zijst(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> In your case user% is dominating system load. Along with the high cs
>> this is really suggesting spinlock contention. A 'perf top' is
>> essential for identifying the culprit. It's very possible that 9.4
>> will fix your problem...see:
>> http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Cpu-usage-100-on-slave-s-lock-problem-td5768655.html.
>> There was some poorly optimized code in the wal replay.
> Did that patch go in? The mailing list thread doesn't seem conclusive.
A descendant patch was applied:
but that's only in 9.4, not any earlier branches.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-06-20 14:39:04 | Re: pros/cons of using "synchronous commit=off" - AWS in particular |
| Previous Message | Larry Prikockis | 2014-06-20 13:49:27 | Re: pros/cons of using "synchronous commit=off" - AWS in particular |