| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? |
| Date: | 2013-09-11 19:06:23 |
| Message-ID: | 5230BF2F.8070600@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikkel Lauritsen | 2013-09-11 19:23:20 | Re: Reasons for choosing one execution plan over another? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-09-11 18:35:45 | Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? |