im using aolserver 3.3.1 + ad on RH7.2.. postgresql 7.1...

i have this IDLE processes in postgres.. only aolserver uses this DBs..
so i was wondering if this processes are caused by unclosed threads on DB
access?

is this normal? if ill be killing this processes would it increase the
efficiency of this server?

1076 ?        S     59:01 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 1077 ?        S     67:49 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 1078 ?        S     18:15 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 1081 ?        S     73:22 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 1084 ?        S     77:29 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 1094 ?        S     78:50 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 1497 ?        S      0:00 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 1498 ?        S      0:00 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 1499 ?        S      0:00 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 1500 ?        S      0:00 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 1914 ?        S     17:29 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 2251 ?        S      0:48 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 2252 ?        S      0:34 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 4921 ?        S    374:18 postgres: acs acs 10.101.52.24 idle
 4922 ?        S    345:38 postgres: acs acs 10.101.52.24 idle
 4923 ?        S    376:31 postgres: acs acs 10.101.52.24 idle
 5017 ?        S    601:22 postgres: acs acs 10.101.52.29 idle
 5018 ?        S    577:26 postgres: acs acs 10.101.52.29 idle
 5019 ?        S    549:21 postgres: acs acs 10.101.52.29 idle
 5020 ?        S    517:29 postgres: acs acs 10.101.52.29 idle
 5213 ?        S    556:50 postgres: acs acs 10.101.52.29 idle
 5214 ?        S    375:59 postgres: acs acs 10.101.52.24 idle
 5215 ?        S    356:02 postgres: acs acs 10.101.52.24 idle
 5370 ?        S      1:01 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 8828 ?        S      0:00 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
12143 ?        S     14:15 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 6414 ?        S     13:55 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
 6418 ?        S     13:50 postgres: acs acs [local] idle
21647 ?        S      0:01 postgres: acs acs [local] idle


thanks in advance...

Reply via email to