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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
