On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Lonni J Friedman <netllama(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> What are you doing to "terminate" these remote connections? What it
>>> sounds like is the connected server process isn't being told about the
>>> termination, and so it sits there waiting for input that will never
>> Normally, just quitting from psql, but as part of today's experiment I
>> rebooted the system that the table claimed was still connected. The
>> server is running Linux with a reasonably recent 2.6.x kernel.
> Hm, but what's the client-side OS? A reasonable OS should send a
> connection close notification (TCP RST) when the psql process dies,
> even if you managed to kill it in a way that prevented psql from
> closing the connection for itself. However, if that didn't happen
> for some reason, reboot would not make things better. It would just
> guarantee that the OS no longer had any memory of the connection either.
The client side is Linux too.
> It still sounds like your problems are fundamentally network-level
> problems and not Postgres problems... but it's hard to tell from
> here whether it's client-side software or network infrastructure
> doing it to you.
L. Friedman netllama(at)gmail(dot)com
In response to
pgsql-novice by date
|Next:||From: Andreas Wenk||Date: 2009-07-28 09:25:25|
|Subject: Re: Location of databases|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-07-28 02:02:24|
|Subject: Re: total number of concurrent connections |