Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Slavisa Garic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... Now, the
> > interesting behaviour is this. I've ran netstat on the machine where
> > my software is running and I searched for tcp connections to my PGSQL
> > server. What i found was hundreds of lines like this:
> > tcp 0 0 remus.dstc.monash:43001 remus.dstc.monash:39504
> > TIME_WAIT
> > tcp 0 0 remus.dstc.monash:43001 remus.dstc.monash:40720
> > TIME_WAIT
> > tcp 0 0 remus.dstc.monash:43001 remus.dstc.monash:39135
> > TIME_WAIT
> This is a network-level issue: the TCP stack on your machine knows the
> connection has been closed, but it hasn't seen an acknowledgement of
> that fact from the other machine, and so it's remembering the connection
> number so that it can definitively say "that connection is closed" if
> the other machine asks. I'd guess that either you have a flaky network
> or there's something bogus about the TCP stack on the client machine.
> An occasional dropped FIN packet is no surprise, but hundreds of 'em
> are suspicious.
No, what Tom's describing is a different pair of states called FIN_WAIT_1 and
FIN_WAIT_2. TIME_WAIT isn't waiting for a packet, just a timeout. This is to
prevent any delayed packets from earlier in the connection causing problems
with a subsequent good connection. Otherwise you could get data from the old
connection mixed in the data for later ones.
> > Now could someone explain to me what this really means and what effect
> > it might have on the machine (the same machine where I ran this
> > query)? Would there eventually be a shortage of available ports if
> > this kept growing? The reason I am asking this is because one of my
> > modules was raising exception saying that TCP connection could not be
> > establish to a server it needed to connect to.
What it does indicate is that each query you're making is probably not just a
separate transaction but a separate TCP connection. That's probably not
necessary. If you have a single long-lived process you could just keep the TCP
connection open and issue a COMMIT after each transaction. That's what I would
Unless you have thousands of these TIME_WAIT connections they probably aren't
actually directly the cause of your failure to establish connections. But yes
it can happen.
What's more likely happening here is that you're stressing the server by
issuing so many connection attempts that you're triggering some bug, either in
the TCP stack or Postgres that is causing some connection attempts to not be
I'm skeptical that there's a bug in Postgres since lots of people do in fact
run web servers configured to open a new connection for every page. But this
wouldn't happen to be a Windows server would it? Perhaps the networking code
in that port doesn't do the right thing in this case?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match