Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nQKPM-00073J-Pv for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 02:44:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nQKPL-0003gq-E1 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 02:44:35 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nQKPL-0003gO-42 for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 02:44:35 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nQKPE-00074K-Oq for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 02:44:34 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 2252iPS94007945; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 21:44:25 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Mladen Gogala cc: Pgsql Performance Subject: Re: XA transactions much slower on 14.2 than on 13.5 In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Mladen Gogala message dated "Fri, 04 Mar 2022 21:33:01 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <4007943.1646448265.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 21:44:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4007944.1646448265@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Mladen Gogala writes: > My boss asked me to upgrade one of the developmentĀ  databases from 13.5 > --> 14.2. One thing that we've noticed right away is that XA > transactions (2-phase commit) are much slower on 14.2 than on 13.5. Were > there any significant changes to the XA protocol in the version 14? Did > anybody else encountered this problem? There were a bunch of changes around the 2PC code to support logical replication of 2PC transactions, but I don't think they should have made for any particular performance difference in non-replicated servers. Can you put together a self-contained test case that demonstrates what you're seeing? regards, tom lane