Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VJpka-0001ZO-PS for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:06:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VJpka-0003Rz-93 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:06:52 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VJpkZ-0003Rt-Fx for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:06:51 +0000 Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.197]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VJpkW-0005C1-Ul for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:06:51 +0000 Received: from mfilter21-d.gandi.net (mfilter21-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.149]) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505B941C05A; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:06:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter21-d.gandi.net Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.197]) by mfilter21-d.gandi.net (mfilter21-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93nPoOa133Tk; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:06:26 +0200 (CEST) X-Originating-IP: 98.27.58.255 Received: from [192.168.10.146] (cpe-098-027-058-255.nc.res.rr.com [98.27.58.255]) (Authenticated sender: adsend@dunslane.net) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB16841C072; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:06:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5230BF2F.8070600@dunslane.net> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:06:23 -0400 From: Andrew Dunstan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Berkus CC: Andres Freund , Jeff Janes , Amit Kapila , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? 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> <5230B801.90507@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: <5230B801.90507@agliodbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) 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 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. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance