From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 23:10:08 +0200
Message-ID: <20130911211008.GE1138556@alap2.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5230BF2F.8070600@dunslane.net>
References: <51A79512.4020200@agliodbs.com>
<WM!c84cb8479a8b2ec21d1061c951095da00bc52608e9822124f1438b9de432ec7ebedaf25085801b67d581eed6d368c344!@asav-2.01.com>
<51FAA1B8.6040809@agliodbs.com>
<CAMkU=1wn3npjTjEkC8rYMgmoKXYoAgfxosT_Q3v_=wTfriPKdA@mail.gmail.com>
<522E69F1.8070203@dunslane.net>
<20130910122036.GF1024477@alap2.anarazel.de>
<522F146D.2070908@dunslane.net>
<WM!21a18aa9cbf2098b3ceb8d93a0769806466db819c328e3d732b1667507e087969764ace79b57bc4d6e54a0bce329a6fa!@asav-3.01.com>
<5230B801.90507@agliodbs.com>
<5230BF2F.8070600@dunslane.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On 2013-09-11 15:06:23 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 09/11/2013 02:35 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >We've confirmed that this issue is caused by having long-running idle
> >transactions on the server. When we disabled their queueing system
> >(which prodiced hour-long idle txns), the progressive slowness went away.
> >
> >Why that should affect 9.X far more strongly than 8.4, I'm not sure
> >about. Does that mean that 8.4 was unsafe, or that this is something
> >which *could* be fixed in later versions?
> >
> >I'm also confused as to why this would affect BIND time rather than
> >EXECUTE time.
> >
>
>
> One thing that this made me wonder is why we don't have transaction_timeout,
> or maybe transaction_idle_timeout.
Because it's harder than it sounds, at least if you want to support
idle-in-transactions. Note that we do not support pg_cancel_backend()
for those yet...
Also, I think it might lead to papering over actual issues with
applications leaving transactions open. I don't really see a valid
reason for an application needing cancelling of long idle transactions.
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@2ndquadrant.com, andrew@dunslane.net, josh@agliodbs.com, jeff.janes@gmail.com, amit.kapila@huawei.com
Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?
In-Reply-To: <20130911211008.GE1138556@alap2.anarazel.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox