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
