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