will run OK under 64bit Windows. I mean allegedly *anything* 32bit is supposed
to run under 64bit, but it's not always this simple in practice.
-Brendan
-Original Message-
From: Jayadevan M [mailto:jayadevan.maym...@ibsplc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2010 4:42 PM
To: Brendan
We're about to purchase a new server for our Postgres 8.4 database. We'd
like to go with Windows 64bit for possible future developments, but are
happy to stick with 32bit Postgres + Npgsql, ODBC, OpenSSL, slony2 and
libxml2, libpq.
I understand that Postgres 32bit runs fine in Windows 64bit, bu
ilto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Sunday, 27 September 2009 2:42 PM
To: Brendan Hill
Cc: 'Craig Ringer'; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Idle processes chewing up CPU?
"Brendan Hill" writes:
> Makes sense to me. Seems to be happening rarely now.
>
though, seems like a good idea
regardless, what do you think?
Regards,
-Brendan
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Sunday, 27 September 2009 2:42 PM
To: Brendan Hill
Cc: 'Craig Ringer'; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Idle p
5:25 AM
To: Brendan Hill
Cc: 'Craig Ringer'; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Idle processes chewing up CPU?
"Brendan Hill" writes:
> My best interpretation is that an SSL client dirty disconnected while
> running a request. This caused an infinit
Hi Craig, I've debugged the runaway process, though I'm not sure of the
solution yet.
My best interpretation is that an SSL client dirty disconnected while
running a request. This caused an infinite loop in pq_recvbuf(), calling
secure_read(), triggering my_sock_read() over and over. Calling
SSL_g
endan Hill
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; 'Tom Lane'
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Idle processes chewing up CPU?
On 19/08/2009 12:31 PM, Brendan Hill wrote:
> Hi Craig/Tom,
>
> I've managed to trap the full stack trace this time
The common part of those traces is:
&g
papers.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 August 2009 5:44 PM
To: Brendan Hill
Cc: 'Tom Lane'; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Idle processes chewing up CPU?
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 16:44 +1000, Brendan Hill wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> Sorry, I had the stack trace so I th
siveness is terrific.
-Brendan
-Original Message-
From: Craig Ringer [mailto:cr...@postnewspapers.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 August 2009 5:44 PM
To: Brendan Hill
Cc: 'Tom Lane'; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Idle processes chewing up CPU?
On Wed, 2009-08-0
PM
To: Brendan Hill
Cc: 'Tom Lane'; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Idle processes chewing up CPU?
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 15:26 +1000, Brendan Hill wrote:
> I copied a few of the stack traces (at the end of this email), it kept
> changing each time I looked.
Yep, that
ould_retry+0x57
-Original Message-
From: Craig Ringer [mailto:cr...@postnewspapers.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 July 2009 8:09 PM
To: Brendan Hill
Cc: 'Tom Lane'; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Idle processes chewing up CPU?
Craig Ringer wrote:
> Brendan Hill w
Hi Tom,
Given it's on Windows, any suggestion for how I would get hold of this?
(Process Monitor tool perhaps?)
Regards,
-Brendan
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 July 2009 4:13 AM
To: Brendan Hill
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresq
ither way. I've killed
it just in case.
Any thoughts on what is causing this, or how I could diagnose the problem
further?
Regards,
Brendan Hill
Chief Information Officer
Jims Group Pty Ltd
48 Edinburgh Rd
Mooroolbark VIC 3138
www.jims.net
For all Jims IT enquiries: infot...@
13 matches
Mail list logo
