MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAJk5Atanc-d4xg_3UxbTybvNmPfb593WAhLFqjAWEUhm5cYQDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aMLUyeo6Ezy3cW0G@depesz.com>
In-Reply-To: <aMLUyeo6Ezy3cW0G@depesz.com>
From: Raj <rajeshkumar.dba09@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 22:11:59 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAJk5Atb_fEjofuXBXqEKF4+yh69ePjCFNLX3T2+C4QMbLf_1pA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pgbouncer
To: depesz@depesz.com
Cc: Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000012b6a5063e89388c"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJk5Atb_fEjofuXBXqEKF4%2Byh69ePjCFNLX3T2%2BC4QMbLf_1pA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--00000000000012b6a5063e89388c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I am asking should we use pgbouncer? If so, what's the compelling situation
despite having postgres inbuilt timeout parameters.

On Thu, 11 Sept 2025, 19:25 hubert depesz lubaczewski, <depesz@depesz.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 07:01:26PM +0530, Raj wrote:
> > We are migrating from oracle.to postgres and its done.
> >
> > Now as a DBA, to improve performance say idle connecting handling or
> > anything, if I want to recommend pgbouncer to the team, what's the
> > compelling reason would it be?
>
> https://www.depesz.com/2012/12/02/what-is-the-point-of-bouncing/
>
> > I may ask them to handle connections from application end and they may
> say
> > ok but we still.may see idle connections are not closed.
> >
> > So, at point and for what compelling reason I should tell my manager, we
> > must go-ahead and use etc.
> >
> > We use pg17 and in postgres itself I know idle_session_timeount,
> > transaction_timeout, statement_timeout. Is this enough? Will it abruptly
> > kill queries and if so, isn't it bad?
>
> statement_timeout and transaction_timeout have the power to kill
> queries, yes.
>
> Best regards,
>
> depesz
>
>

--00000000000012b6a5063e89388c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">I am asking should we use pgbouncer? If so, what&#39;s th=
e compelling situation despite having postgres inbuilt timeout parameters.<=
/div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, 11 Sept 2025, 19:25 hubert depesz lubaczewski,=
 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:depesz@depesz.com">depesz@depesz.com</a>&gt; wrote:<=
br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 07:01:26PM =
+0530, Raj wrote:<br>
&gt; We are migrating from <a href=3D"http://oracle.to" rel=3D"noreferrer n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">oracle.to</a> postgres and its done.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Now as a DBA, to improve performance say idle connecting handling or<b=
r>
&gt; anything, if I want to recommend pgbouncer to the team, what&#39;s the=
<br>
&gt; compelling reason would it be?<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://www.depesz.com/2012/12/02/what-is-the-point-of-bouncing/=
" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.depesz.com/20=
12/12/02/what-is-the-point-of-bouncing/</a><br>
<br>
&gt; I may ask them to handle connections from application end and they may=
 say<br>
&gt; ok but we still.may see idle connections are not closed.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; So, at point and for what compelling reason I should tell my manager, =
we<br>
&gt; must go-ahead and use etc.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; We use pg17 and in postgres itself I know idle_session_timeount,<br>
&gt; transaction_timeout, statement_timeout. Is this enough? Will it abrupt=
ly<br>
&gt; kill queries and if so, isn&#39;t it bad?<br>
<br>
statement_timeout and transaction_timeout have the power to kill<br>
queries, yes.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
depesz<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000012b6a5063e89388c--