Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.

Bug 82072

Summary: postmaster consumes lots of CPU
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Ben Elliston <bje>
Component: postgresqlAssignee: Andrew Overholt <overholt>
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME QA Contact: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 7.1   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i686   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-01-17 16:50:07 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Ben Elliston 2003-01-17 03:02:06 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3; Linux)

Description of problem:
Since upgrading (via RHN) to postgresql-7.0.3-9.2, postmaster has been consuming lots of CPU--and never backing off its usage after startup.  The database on my system is used only for webmail address books and is *very, very* lightly utilised.

This happened as soon as I upgraded to the latest postgresql RPM on the redhat-7.1 channel.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Try upgrading to postgresql-7.0.3-9.2 on an up2date 7.1 system.

Actual Results:  postmaster process consumes ~95% of CPU.

Expected Results:  postmaster should be dormant.

Additional info:

This happened as soon as I upgraded my postgresql packages via RHN due to recently discovered security holes.

Comment 1 Andrew Overholt 2003-01-17 16:50:07 UTC
I can't seem to reproduce this bug.  I have tried loading the server (medium to
high loads) and the CPU usage never increases beyond 3% or so.  This behaviour
is consistent over different trials and different machines.  It should be noted
that these systems were almost completely base installations with everything
else up to date.  Perhaps the error lies somewhere else and it is just
coincidence?  The package is essentially the same thing with just a few security
holes filled in here and there ... not much to affect performance in such a
major way.