Paul, you stud! I'm one of the ones reporting this same issue, and I will happily volunteer my 60-instance Spacewalk 1.7 install for testing. I'll implement your fix and report back on my findings.
- Jonathan On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Paul Robert Marino <[email protected]>wrote: > Well you are right there is nothing in the change log that idicates that > this issue existed or how its fixed. > But as I said it seems to fix it there is probably a side effect fix that > was not planed but seems to work. > The results are rediculously obvious initialy now honestly I think it > needs a few days of testing to prove it, and I would like for others to > confirm it but from my initial test it on one of my development instances > it looks good. I would like other people to test it because I'm not using > monitoring on that instance and I only have a few systems attached to it > but the difference is so obvious there is deffinitly something there. > By the way I've seen the change log betwean 701to 702 but I haven't seen > the change log betwean 702 and 703 and I looked its not on their site or in > the source package as far as I could initialy tell. > > While I admit I can't point to a reason in the change log why, it at least > initialy seems to work. I think if any thing it may be a compound > correction of multiple bugs that may of fixed a larger harder to pinpoint > issue. > On Nov 6, 2012 12:01 AM, "Tom Lane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Paul Robert Marino <[email protected]> writes: >> > Ive been doing some testing and I am fairly positive I found out why >> > the number of connections in PostgreSQL increases and its not a >> > spacewalk bug at all. >> > It looks like its a JDBC bug [ and is fixed in 8.4-703 ] >> >> This is really interesting, but I looked through the upstream commit >> logs, and I can't see any patches between 8.4-701 and 8.4-703 that look >> like they'd cure a "connection leak" such as you're describing. There >> are a couple of fixes for possible loss-of-protocol-sync issues, but it >> doesn't seem like that would result in silent leakage; the symptoms >> would be pretty obvious. >> >> Have you poked into the client-side state to see what that end thinks >> it's doing with the idle connections? >> >> regards, tom lane >> > > _______________________________________________ > Spacewalk-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list >
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
