Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VJO4R-00028A-K8 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:33:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VJO4R-0001EW-4W for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:33:31 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VJO4P-0001EM-Vi for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:33:30 +0000 Received: from mail.anarazel.de ([217.115.131.40]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VJO4J-0003Ix-CZ for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:33:29 +0000 Received: from intern.anarazel.de (unknown [82.113.99.216]) (Authenticated sender: andres@anarazel.de) by mail.anarazel.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F9D04E8002; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:33:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:23:17 +0200 From: Andres Freund To: Andrew Dunstan Cc: Jeff Janes , Josh Berkus , Amit Kapila , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? Message-ID: <20130910132317.GK1024477@alap2.anarazel.de> References: <51A699E6.3000008@agliodbs.com> <51A79512.4020200@agliodbs.com> <51FAA1B8.6040809@agliodbs.com> <522E69F1.8070203@dunslane.net> <20130910122036.GF1024477@alap2.anarazel.de> <522F146D.2070908@dunslane.net> <20130910132133.GJ1024477@alap2.anarazel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130910132133.GJ1024477@alap2.anarazel.de> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org On 2013-09-10 15:21:33 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > If I interpret things correctly you're using serializable? I guess there > is no chance to use repeatable read instead? Err, that wouldn't help much. Read committed. That lets PGXACT->xmin advance these days and thus might help to reduce the impact of the longrunning transactions. Otherwise you will have to shorten those... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance