Horton

Thread

  1. Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org> — 2025-05-05T08:52:54Z

    Hi,

We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to PG17. While
doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances from 1.12 to 1.24. As
everything worked on the test servers we pushed this to production a few
weeks ago. We did not notice any problems until a few days ago (but the
problems were here from the start). The main manifestation of the problems
is a service that runs a fixed query to get a backlog of unprocessed data
(limited to a 1000 rows). When testing the query using pgAdmin connected
directly to the database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query
runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same database.

The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain of the same
query we get different plans. We did this a few seconds apart so there
should be no difference in collected statistics. We ruled out prepared
statements, as we suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but it
is not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be the cause of
this?

Regards,
Mladen Marinović

  2. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> — 2025-05-05T09:24:40Z

    On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to PG17. While 
> doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances from 1.12 to 1.24. As 
> everything worked on the test servers we pushed this to production a 
> few weeks ago. We did not notice any problems until a few days ago 
> (but the problems were here from the start). The main manifestation of 
> the problems is a service that runs a fixed query to get a backlog of 
> unprocessed data (limited to a 1000 rows). When testing the query 
> using pgAdmin connected directly to the database we get a result in 
> cca. 20 seconds. The same query runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer 
> to connect to the same database.


That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of your app. 
In which language is your app written? If java, then define 
prepareThreshold=0 in your jdbc and set max_prepared_statements = 0 in 
pgbouncer.

How about search paths ? any difference on those between the two runs ? 
Do you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is "cca." btw ?

>
> The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain of the same 
> query we get different plans. We did this a few seconds apart so there 
> should be no difference in collected statistics. We ruled out prepared 
> statements, as we suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but 
> it is not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be the 
> cause of this?


Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there limits per 
user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?

Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is completely 
passive, just passes through SQL to the server as fast as possible as it 
can. But I am sure you know that. Good luck, keep us posted!

>
> Regards,
> Mladen Marinović

  3. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> — 2025-05-05T10:07:13Z

    On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios 
> <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>
>     On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to PG17.
>>     While doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances from 1.12 to
>>     1.24. As everything worked on the test servers we pushed this to
>>     production a few weeks ago. We did not notice any problems until
>>     a few days ago (but the problems were here from the start). The
>>     main manifestation of the problems is a service that runs a fixed
>>     query to get a backlog of unprocessed data (limited to a 1000
>>     rows). When testing the query using pgAdmin connected directly to
>>     the database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query
>>     runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same
>>     database.
>
>
>     That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of your
>     app. In which language is your app written? If java, then define
>     prepareThreshold=0 in your jdbc and set max_prepared_statements =
>     0 in pgbouncer.
>
> Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a java service.
> Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed the 
> max_prepared_statements to 0 from the default (200) but no change was 
> noticed.
>
>     How about search paths ? any difference on those between the two
>     runs ? Do you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is "cca." btw ?
>
>>
>>     The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain of the
>>     same query we get different plans. We did this a few seconds
>>     apart so there should be no difference in collected statistics.
>>     We ruled out prepared statements, as we suspected the generic
>>     plan might be the problem, but it is not. Is there any pgBouncer
>>     or PG17 parameter that might be the cause of this?
>
>
>     Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there
>     limits per user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?
>
> No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain SQL (CTE, SELECT, 
> INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE,...) There are limits, but they are not hit. 
> The query just uses a different plan and runs slower because of that.
>
>     Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is completely
>     passive, just passes through SQL to the server as fast as possible
>     as it can. But I am sure you know that. Good luck, keep us posted!
>
> Yes, that is what puzzles me.

What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server connections ?

How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of those? What's the 
isolation level ?

How about the user ? is this the same user doing pgadmin queries VS via 
the app ?

Can you identify the user under which the problem is manifested and :

ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';

ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; -- to help 
you debug the prepared statements .. just in case , and other stuff not 
printed by log_statement = all.

> Regards,
> Mladen Marinović

  4. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org> — 2025-05-05T12:27:36Z

    On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 12:07 PM Achilleas Mantzios <
a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:

>
> On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <
> a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to PG17. While
>> doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances from 1.12 to 1.24. As
>> everything worked on the test servers we pushed this to production a few
>> weeks ago. We did not notice any problems until a few days ago (but the
>> problems were here from the start). The main manifestation of the problems
>> is a service that runs a fixed query to get a backlog of unprocessed data
>> (limited to a 1000 rows). When testing the query using pgAdmin connected
>> directly to the database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query
>> runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same database.
>>
>>
>> That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of your app. In
>> which language is your app written? If java, then define prepareThreshold=0
>> in your jdbc and set max_prepared_statements = 0 in pgbouncer.
>>
> Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a java service.
> Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed the  max_prepared_statements
> to 0 from the default (200) but no change was noticed.
>
>> How about search paths ? any difference on those between the two runs ?
>> Do you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is "cca." btw ?
>>
>>
>> The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain of the same
>> query we get different plans. We did this a few seconds apart so there
>> should be no difference in collected statistics. We ruled out prepared
>> statements, as we suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but it
>> is not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be the cause of
>> this?
>>
>>
>> Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there limits per
>> user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?
>>
> No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain SQL (CTE, SELECT, INSERT,
> UPDATE, DELETE,...) There are limits, but they are not hit. The query just
> uses a different plan and runs slower because of that.
>
>> Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is completely passive,
>> just passes through SQL to the server as fast as possible as it can. But I
>> am sure you know that. Good luck, keep us posted!
>>
> Yes, that is what puzzles me.
>
> What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server connections ?
>
> How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of those? What's the
> isolation level ?
>
> How about the user ? is this the same user doing pgadmin queries VS via
> the app ?
>
> Can you identify the user under which the problem is manifested and :
>
> ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';
>
> ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; -- to help
> you debug the prepared statements .. just in case , and other stuff not
> printed by log_statement = all.
>
> None of those parameters should affect the fact that when issuing the
explain select query (the statement is not prepared) from psql directly
gives a different result than issuing it over the pgbouncer connection. The
result is repeatable.

We have rolled back pgbouncer to 1.12. and it seems the problem persists.
This is one of the weirdest things I have ever seen with PostgreSQL.

>
> Regards,
> Mladen Marinović
>
>

  5. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> — 2025-05-05T12:29:25Z

    On 5/5/25 11:30, Ruben Morais wrote:

> HI,
>
> Could be a hint but test with jit to off.
> If not wrong as you change from 11 to 17, that could be a cause, just 
> try it because in some cases plans changed when jit is on.
>
Not only JIT but also other extensions (such as timescale) could greatly 
affect the plan.

He could find if any GUC are set for the particular user :

select * from pg_db_role_setting where setrole = 
to_regrole('<unlucky_user>');


> Regards,
> *Rúben Morais*
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:07 AM Achilleas Mantzios 
> <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>
>     On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios
>>     <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>>>         Hi,
>>>
>>>         We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to
>>>         PG17. While doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances
>>>         from 1.12 to 1.24. As everything worked on the test servers
>>>         we pushed this to production a few weeks ago. We did not
>>>         notice any problems until a few days ago (but the problems
>>>         were here from the start). The main manifestation of the
>>>         problems is a service that runs a fixed query to get a
>>>         backlog of unprocessed data (limited to a 1000 rows). When
>>>         testing the query using pgAdmin connected directly to the
>>>         database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query
>>>         runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same
>>>         database.
>>
>>
>>         That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of
>>         your app. In which language is your app written? If java,
>>         then define prepareThreshold=0 in your jdbc and set
>>         max_prepared_statements = 0 in pgbouncer.
>>
>>     Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a java service.
>>     Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed the
>>     max_prepared_statements to 0 from the default (200) but no change
>>     was noticed.
>>
>>         How about search paths ? any difference on those between the
>>         two runs ? Do you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is
>>         "cca." btw ?
>>
>>>
>>>         The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain
>>>         of the same query we get different plans. We did this a few
>>>         seconds apart so there should be no difference in collected
>>>         statistics. We ruled out prepared statements, as we
>>>         suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but it is
>>>         not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be
>>>         the cause of this?
>>
>>
>>         Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there
>>         limits per user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?
>>
>>     No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain SQL (CTE, SELECT,
>>     INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE,...) There are limits, but they are not
>>     hit. The query just uses a different plan and runs slower because
>>     of that.
>>
>>         Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is
>>         completely passive, just passes through SQL to the server as
>>         fast as possible as it can. But I am sure you know that. Good
>>         luck, keep us posted!
>>
>>     Yes, that is what puzzles me.
>
>     What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server connections ?
>
>     How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of those? What's
>     the isolation level ?
>
>     How about the user ? is this the same user doing pgadmin queries
>     VS via the app ?
>
>     Can you identify the user under which the problem is manifested and :
>
>     ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';
>
>     ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; --
>     to help you debug the prepared statements .. just in case , and
>     other stuff not printed by log_statement = all.
>
>>     Regards,
>>     Mladen Marinović
>

  6. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> — 2025-05-05T12:36:24Z

    On 5/5/25 13:27, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 12:07 PM Achilleas Mantzios 
> <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>
>     On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios
>>     <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>>>         Hi,
>>>
>>>         We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to
>>>         PG17. While doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances
>>>         from 1.12 to 1.24. As everything worked on the test servers
>>>         we pushed this to production a few weeks ago. We did not
>>>         notice any problems until a few days ago (but the problems
>>>         were here from the start). The main manifestation of the
>>>         problems is a service that runs a fixed query to get a
>>>         backlog of unprocessed data (limited to a 1000 rows). When
>>>         testing the query using pgAdmin connected directly to the
>>>         database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query
>>>         runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same
>>>         database.
>>
>>
>>         That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of
>>         your app. In which language is your app written? If java,
>>         then define prepareThreshold=0 in your jdbc and set
>>         max_prepared_statements = 0 in pgbouncer.
>>
>>     Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a java service.
>>     Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed the
>>     max_prepared_statements to 0 from the default (200) but no change
>>     was noticed.
>>
>>         How about search paths ? any difference on those between the
>>         two runs ? Do you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is
>>         "cca." btw ?
>>
>>>
>>>         The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain
>>>         of the same query we get different plans. We did this a few
>>>         seconds apart so there should be no difference in collected
>>>         statistics. We ruled out prepared statements, as we
>>>         suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but it is
>>>         not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be
>>>         the cause of this?
>>
>>
>>         Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there
>>         limits per user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?
>>
>>     No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain SQL (CTE, SELECT,
>>     INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE,...) There are limits, but they are not
>>     hit. The query just uses a different plan and runs slower because
>>     of that.
>>
>>         Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is
>>         completely passive, just passes through SQL to the server as
>>         fast as possible as it can. But I am sure you know that. Good
>>         luck, keep us posted!
>>
>>     Yes, that is what puzzles me.
>
>     What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server connections ?
>
>     How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of those? What's
>     the isolation level ?
>
>     How about the user ? is this the same user doing pgadmin queries
>     VS via the app ?
>
>     Can you identify the user under which the problem is manifested and :
>
>     ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';
>
>     ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; --
>     to help you debug the prepared statements .. just in case , and
>     other stuff not printed by log_statement = all.
>
> None of those parameters should affect the fact that when issuing the 
> explain select query (the statement is not prepared) from psql 
> directly gives a different result than issuing it over the pgbouncer 
> connection. The result is repeatable.
>
> We have rolled back pgbouncer to 1.12. and it seems the problem 
> persists. This is one of the weirdest things I have ever seen with 
> PostgreSQL.


ok, this is something, at least one more extreme thought ruled out. How 
about search_path ?  is this the SAME user that is issuing the 
statements in pgadmin VS pgbouncer ?

Is there a connect_query inside pgbouncer's conf ?

you have to show all configuration involved and also full logging on the 
backend for said user.


>>     Regards,
>>     Mladen Marinović
>

  7. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    SERHAD ERDEM <serhade@hotmail.com> — 2025-05-05T12:38:51Z

    Hi  , you had better try  vacuum  analyze for the whole db ,   pgbouncer  connection layer can not causeslow queries.

________________________________
From: Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12:27 PM
To: Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...



On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 12:07 PM Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com<mailto:a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>> wrote:


On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:


On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com<mailto:a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>> wrote:


On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
Hi,

We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to PG17. While doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances from 1.12 to 1.24. As everything worked on the test servers we pushed this to production a few weeks ago. We did not notice any problems until a few days ago (but the problems were here from the start). The main manifestation of the problems is a service that runs a fixed query to get a backlog of unprocessed data (limited to a 1000 rows). When testing the query using pgAdmin connected directly to the database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same database.


That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of your app. In which language is your app written? If java, then define prepareThreshold=0 in your jdbc and set max_prepared_statements = 0 in pgbouncer.

Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a java service.
Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed the  max_prepared_statements to 0 from the default (200) but no change was noticed.

How about search paths ? any difference on those between the two runs ? Do you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is "cca." btw ?

The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain of the same query we get different plans. We did this a few seconds apart so there should be no difference in collected statistics. We ruled out prepared statements, as we suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but it is not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be the cause of this?


Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there limits per user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?

No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain SQL (CTE, SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE,...) There are limits, but they are not hit. The query just uses a different plan and runs slower because of that.

Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is completely passive, just passes through SQL to the server as fast as possible as it can. But I am sure you know that. Good luck, keep us posted!

Yes, that is what puzzles me.

What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server connections ?

How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of those? What's the isolation level ?

How about the user ? is this the same user doing pgadmin queries VS via the app ?

Can you identify the user under which the problem is manifested and :

ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';

ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; -- to help you debug the prepared statements .. just in case , and other stuff not printed by log_statement = all.

None of those parameters should affect the fact that when issuing the explain select query (the statement is not prepared) from psql directly gives a different result than issuing it over the pgbouncer connection. The result is repeatable.

We have rolled back pgbouncer to 1.12. and it seems the problem persists. This is one of the weirdest things I have ever seen with PostgreSQL.

Regards,
Mladen Marinović

  8. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org> — 2025-05-05T12:51:20Z

    On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 2:36 PM Achilleas Mantzios <
a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:

>
> On 5/5/25 13:27, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 12:07 PM Achilleas Mantzios <
> a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <
>> a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to PG17. While
>>> doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances from 1.12 to 1.24. As
>>> everything worked on the test servers we pushed this to production a few
>>> weeks ago. We did not notice any problems until a few days ago (but the
>>> problems were here from the start). The main manifestation of the problems
>>> is a service that runs a fixed query to get a backlog of unprocessed data
>>> (limited to a 1000 rows). When testing the query using pgAdmin connected
>>> directly to the database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query
>>> runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same database.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of your app.
>>> In which language is your app written? If java, then define
>>> prepareThreshold=0 in your jdbc and set max_prepared_statements = 0 in
>>> pgbouncer.
>>>
>> Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a java service.
>> Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed the  max_prepared_statements
>> to 0 from the default (200) but no change was noticed.
>>
>>> How about search paths ? any difference on those between the two runs ?
>>> Do you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is "cca." btw ?
>>>
>>>
>>> The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain of the same
>>> query we get different plans. We did this a few seconds apart so there
>>> should be no difference in collected statistics. We ruled out prepared
>>> statements, as we suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but it
>>> is not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be the cause of
>>> this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there limits per
>>> user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?
>>>
>> No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain SQL (CTE, SELECT, INSERT,
>> UPDATE, DELETE,...) There are limits, but they are not hit. The query just
>> uses a different plan and runs slower because of that.
>>
>>> Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is completely
>>> passive, just passes through SQL to the server as fast as possible as it
>>> can. But I am sure you know that. Good luck, keep us posted!
>>>
>> Yes, that is what puzzles me.
>>
>> What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server connections ?
>>
>> How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of those? What's the
>> isolation level ?
>>
>> How about the user ? is this the same user doing pgadmin queries VS via
>> the app ?
>>
>> Can you identify the user under which the problem is manifested and :
>>
>> ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';
>>
>> ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; -- to help
>> you debug the prepared statements .. just in case , and other stuff not
>> printed by log_statement = all.
>>
> None of those parameters should affect the fact that when issuing the
> explain select query (the statement is not prepared) from psql directly
> gives a different result than issuing it over the pgbouncer connection. The
> result is repeatable.
>
> We have rolled back pgbouncer to 1.12. and it seems the problem persists.
> This is one of the weirdest things I have ever seen with PostgreSQL.
>
>
> ok, this is something, at least one more extreme thought ruled out. How
> about search_path ?  is this the SAME user that is issuing the statements
> in pgadmin VS pgbouncer ?
>
The user is the same, the search path is the same:
show search_path ;
   search_path
-----------------
 "$user", public
(1 row)

There is only one schema (public) so there is no posibility that one
connection uses different tables. As I remember correctly the planner uses
the postgresql parameters (from the conf file visible in pg_settings) and
table/row statistics to choose a plan. It is unclear to me how those
numbers can be different when using pgbouncer (I have tried selecting the
configuration using both connections and it is the same).


> Is there a connect_query inside pgbouncer's conf ?
>
The connect_query parameter is not used.

> you have to show all configuration involved and also full logging on the
> backend for said user.
>
I can provide redacted explains if it would help. Full logging is not
feasible.

>
>
>> Regards,
>> Mladen Marinović
>>
>>

  9. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org> — 2025-05-05T12:52:26Z

    On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 2:38 PM SERHAD ERDEM <serhade@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi  , you had better try  vacuum  analyze for the whole db ,   pgbouncer
> connection layer can not causeslow queries.
>

I did that already. But the slow query is the consequence of the different
plan, not the statistics.


> ------------------------------
> *From:* Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 5, 2025 12:27 PM
> *To:* Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
> *Cc:* pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org <
> pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 12:07 PM Achilleas Mantzios <
> a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <
> a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to PG17. While
> doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances from 1.12 to 1.24. As
> everything worked on the test servers we pushed this to production a few
> weeks ago. We did not notice any problems until a few days ago (but the
> problems were here from the start). The main manifestation of the problems
> is a service that runs a fixed query to get a backlog of unprocessed data
> (limited to a 1000 rows). When testing the query using pgAdmin connected
> directly to the database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query
> runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same database.
>
>
> That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of your app. In
> which language is your app written? If java, then define prepareThreshold=0
> in your jdbc and set max_prepared_statements = 0 in pgbouncer.
>
> Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a java service.
> Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed the  max_prepared_statements
> to 0 from the default (200) but no change was noticed.
>
> How about search paths ? any difference on those between the two runs ? Do
> you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is "cca." btw ?
>
>
> The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain of the same
> query we get different plans. We did this a few seconds apart so there
> should be no difference in collected statistics. We ruled out prepared
> statements, as we suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but it
> is not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be the cause of
> this?
>
>
> Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there limits per
> user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?
>
> No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain SQL (CTE, SELECT, INSERT,
> UPDATE, DELETE,...) There are limits, but they are not hit. The query just
> uses a different plan and runs slower because of that.
>
> Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is completely passive,
> just passes through SQL to the server as fast as possible as it can. But I
> am sure you know that. Good luck, keep us posted!
>
> Yes, that is what puzzles me.
>
> What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server connections ?
>
> How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of those? What's the
> isolation level ?
>
> How about the user ? is this the same user doing pgadmin queries VS via
> the app ?
>
> Can you identify the user under which the problem is manifested and :
>
> ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';
>
> ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; -- to help
> you debug the prepared statements .. just in case , and other stuff not
> printed by log_statement = all.
>
> None of those parameters should affect the fact that when issuing the
> explain select query (the statement is not prepared) from psql directly
> gives a different result than issuing it over the pgbouncer connection. The
> result is repeatable.
>
> We have rolled back pgbouncer to 1.12. and it seems the problem persists.
> This is one of the weirdest things I have ever seen with PostgreSQL.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mladen Marinović
>
>

  10. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    SERHAD ERDEM <serhade@hotmail.com> — 2025-05-05T13:07:24Z

    Hi, if you are sure that exac plans are the same ,   try the model  of  select   count (*)  from   type   ,  instead of   select   * from    limit;    you may  understand that the problem it is due to  returning rows  or   not.
________________________________
From: Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12:52 PM
To: SERHAD ERDEM <serhade@hotmail.com>
Cc: Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...



On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 2:38 PM SERHAD ERDEM <serhade@hotmail.com<mailto:serhade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Hi  , you had better try  vacuum  analyze for the whole db ,   pgbouncer  connection layer can not causeslow queries.

I did that already. But the slow query is the consequence of the different plan, not the statistics.

________________________________
From: Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org<mailto:marin@kset.org>>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12:27 PM
To: Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com<mailto:a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>>
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org<mailto:pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org> <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org<mailto:pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>>
Subject: Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...



On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 12:07 PM Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com<mailto:a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>> wrote:


On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:


On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com<mailto:a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>> wrote:


On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
Hi,

We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to PG17. While doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances from 1.12 to 1.24. As everything worked on the test servers we pushed this to production a few weeks ago. We did not notice any problems until a few days ago (but the problems were here from the start). The main manifestation of the problems is a service that runs a fixed query to get a backlog of unprocessed data (limited to a 1000 rows). When testing the query using pgAdmin connected directly to the database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same database.


That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of your app. In which language is your app written? If java, then define prepareThreshold=0 in your jdbc and set max_prepared_statements = 0 in pgbouncer.

Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a java service.
Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed the  max_prepared_statements to 0 from the default (200) but no change was noticed.

How about search paths ? any difference on those between the two runs ? Do you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is "cca." btw ?

The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain of the same query we get different plans. We did this a few seconds apart so there should be no difference in collected statistics. We ruled out prepared statements, as we suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but it is not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be the cause of this?


Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there limits per user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?

No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain SQL (CTE, SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE,...) There are limits, but they are not hit. The query just uses a different plan and runs slower because of that.

Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is completely passive, just passes through SQL to the server as fast as possible as it can. But I am sure you know that. Good luck, keep us posted!

Yes, that is what puzzles me.

What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server connections ?

How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of those? What's the isolation level ?

How about the user ? is this the same user doing pgadmin queries VS via the app ?

Can you identify the user under which the problem is manifested and :

ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';

ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; -- to help you debug the prepared statements .. just in case , and other stuff not printed by log_statement = all.

None of those parameters should affect the fact that when issuing the explain select query (the statement is not prepared) from psql directly gives a different result than issuing it over the pgbouncer connection. The result is repeatable.

We have rolled back pgbouncer to 1.12. and it seems the problem persists. This is one of the weirdest things I have ever seen with PostgreSQL.

Regards,
Mladen Marinović

  11. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Efrain J. Berdecia <ejberdecia@yahoo.com> — 2025-05-05T13:09:51Z

    Is the query using parameter markers? Is the source executing the query forcing a "bad" data type casting?

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer 
 
  On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 8:52 AM, Mladen Marinović<marin@kset.org> wrote:   

On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 2:38 PM SERHAD ERDEM <serhade@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi  , you had better try  vacuum  analyze for the whole db ,   pgbouncer  connection layer can not causeslow queries.

I did that already. But the slow query is the consequence of the different plan, not the statistics. 
From: Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12:27 PM
To: Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer... 

On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 12:07 PM Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:



On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:


On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:



On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
Hi,
We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to PG17. While doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances from 1.12 to 1.24. As everything worked on the test servers we pushed this to production a few weeks ago. We did not notice any problems until a few days ago (but the problems were here from the start). The main manifestation of the problems is a service that runs a fixed query to get a backlog of unprocessed data (limited to a 1000 rows). When testing the query using pgAdmin connected directly to the database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same database.




That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of your app. In which language is your app written? If java, then define prepareThreshold=0 in your jdbc and setmax_prepared_statements = 0in pgbouncer.

Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a java service.Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed the max_prepared_statementsto 0 from the default (200) but no change was noticed.

How about search paths ? any difference on those between the two runs ? Do you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is "cca." btw ?


The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain of the same query we get different plans. We did this a few seconds apart so there should be no difference in collected statistics. We ruled out prepared statements, as we suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but it is not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be the cause of this?




Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there limits per user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?

No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain SQL (CTE, SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE,...) There are limits, but they are not hit. The query just uses a different plan and runs slower because of that.

Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is completely passive, just passes through SQL to the server as fast as possible as it can. But I am sure you know that. Good luck, keep us posted!

Yes, that is what puzzles me.

What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server connections ?

How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of those? What's the isolation level ?

How about the user ? is this the same user doing pgadmin queries VS via the app ?

Can you identify the user under which the problem is manifested and :

ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';

ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; -- to help you debug the prepared statements .. just in case , and other stuff not printed by log_statement = all.

None of those parameters should affect the fact that when issuing the explain select query (the statement is not prepared) from psql directly gives a different result than issuing it over the pgbouncer connection. The result is repeatable.
We have rolled back pgbouncer to 1.12. and it seems the problem persists. This is one of the weirdest things I have ever seen with PostgreSQL.

 Regards,Mladen Marinović

  12. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org> — 2025-05-05T13:26:19Z

    Hi,

Mystery not solved...but identified. The pool is in transaction mode and
some connections use set enable_mergejoin=off, but they do not set it back
to on. Upon getting the connection from the pool the parameter is still set
to off causing the planner to not use this kind of join which results in
different plans when using this tainted pgbouncer connection instead of the
clean one from pg17.

The problem is that server_reset_query is not used when the pool is in
transaction mode. Now, we have to see how to fix this problem.

Regards,
Mladen Marinović

On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 3:10 PM Efrain J. Berdecia <ejberdecia@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Is the query using parameter markers? Is the source executing the query
> forcing a "bad" data type casting?
>
> Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
> <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=US_Acquisition_YMktg_315_SearchOrgConquer_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=US_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100002039&af_sub5=C01_Email_Static_&af_ios_store_cpp=0c38e4b0-a27e-40f9-a211-f4e2de32ab91&af_android_url=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yahoo.mobile.client.android.mail&listing=search_organize_conquer>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 8:52 AM, Mladen Marinović
> <marin@kset.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 2:38 PM SERHAD ERDEM <serhade@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi  , you had better try  vacuum  analyze for the whole db ,   pgbouncer
> connection layer can not causeslow queries.
>
>
> I did that already. But the slow query is the consequence of the different
> plan, not the statistics.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 5, 2025 12:27 PM
> *To:* Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
> *Cc:* pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org <
> pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 12:07 PM Achilleas Mantzios <
> a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <
> a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to PG17. While
> doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances from 1.12 to 1.24. As
> everything worked on the test servers we pushed this to production a few
> weeks ago. We did not notice any problems until a few days ago (but the
> problems were here from the start). The main manifestation of the problems
> is a service that runs a fixed query to get a backlog of unprocessed data
> (limited to a 1000 rows). When testing the query using pgAdmin connected
> directly to the database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query
> runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same database.
>
>
> That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of your app. In
> which language is your app written? If java, then define prepareThreshold=0
> in your jdbc and set max_prepared_statements = 0 in pgbouncer.
>
> Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a java service.
> Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed the  max_prepared_statements
> to 0 from the default (200) but no change was noticed.
>
> How about search paths ? any difference on those between the two runs ? Do
> you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is "cca." btw ?
>
>
> The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain of the same
> query we get different plans. We did this a few seconds apart so there
> should be no difference in collected statistics. We ruled out prepared
> statements, as we suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but it
> is not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be the cause of
> this?
>
>
> Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there limits per
> user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?
>
> No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain SQL (CTE, SELECT, INSERT,
> UPDATE, DELETE,...) There are limits, but they are not hit. The query just
> uses a different plan and runs slower because of that.
>
> Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is completely passive,
> just passes through SQL to the server as fast as possible as it can. But I
> am sure you know that. Good luck, keep us posted!
>
> Yes, that is what puzzles me.
>
> What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server connections ?
>
> How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of those? What's the
> isolation level ?
>
> How about the user ? is this the same user doing pgadmin queries VS via
> the app ?
>
> Can you identify the user under which the problem is manifested and :
>
> ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';
>
> ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; -- to help
> you debug the prepared statements .. just in case , and other stuff not
> printed by log_statement = all.
>
> None of those parameters should affect the fact that when issuing the
> explain select query (the statement is not prepared) from psql directly
> gives a different result than issuing it over the pgbouncer connection. The
> result is repeatable.
>
> We have rolled back pgbouncer to 1.12. and it seems the problem persists.
> This is one of the weirdest things I have ever seen with PostgreSQL.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mladen Marinović
>
>

  13. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    SERHAD ERDEM <serhade@hotmail.com> — 2025-05-05T13:36:30Z

    Hi  , wish you good lock with the  "transaction mode" 🙂   if pgbouncer is not really needed  , remove and use plain connections.    i have experienced  pgbouncer   in session mode  over 2 years with situation like  "pain in the ass" , finaly  removed this  bouncing  layer.

________________________________
From: Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 1:26 PM
To: Efrain J. Berdecia <ejberdecia@yahoo.com>
Cc: SERHAD ERDEM <serhade@hotmail.com>; Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

Hi,

Mystery not solved...but identified. The pool is in transaction mode and some connections use set enable_mergejoin=off, but they do not set it back to on. Upon getting the connection from the pool the parameter is still set to off causing the planner to not use this kind of join which results in different plans when using this tainted pgbouncer connection instead of the clean one from pg17.

The problem is that server_reset_query is not used when the pool is in transaction mode. Now, we have to see how to fix this problem.

Regards,
Mladen Marinović

On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 3:10 PM Efrain J. Berdecia <ejberdecia@yahoo.com<mailto:ejberdecia@yahoo.com>> wrote:
Is the query using parameter markers? Is the source executing the query forcing a "bad" data type casting?

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer<https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=US_Acquisition_YMktg_315_SearchOrgConquer_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=US_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100002039&af_sub5=C01_Email_Static_&af_ios_store_cpp=0c38e4b0-a27e-40f9-a211-f4e2de32ab91&af_android_url=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yahoo.mobile.client.android.mail&listing=search_organize_conquer>

On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 8:52 AM, Mladen Marinović
<marin@kset.org<mailto:marin@kset.org>> wrote:


On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 2:38 PM SERHAD ERDEM <serhade@hotmail.com<mailto:serhade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Hi  , you had better try  vacuum  analyze for the whole db ,   pgbouncer  connection layer can not causeslow queries.

I did that already. But the slow query is the consequence of the different plan, not the statistics.

________________________________
From: Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org<mailto:marin@kset.org>>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12:27 PM
To: Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com<mailto:a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>>
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org<mailto:pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org> <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org<mailto:pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>>
Subject: Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...



On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 12:07 PM Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com<mailto:a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>> wrote:


On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:


On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com<mailto:a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>> wrote:


On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
Hi,

We recently migrated our production instances from PG11 to PG17. While doing so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances from 1.12 to 1.24. As everything worked on the test servers we pushed this to production a few weeks ago. We did not notice any problems until a few days ago (but the problems were here from the start). The main manifestation of the problems is a service that runs a fixed query to get a backlog of unprocessed data (limited to a 1000 rows). When testing the query using pgAdmin connected directly to the database we get a result in cca. 20 seconds. The same query runs for 2 hours when using pgBouncer to connect to the same database.


That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did extensive testing of your app. In which language is your app written? If java, then define prepareThreshold=0 in your jdbc and set max_prepared_statements = 0 in pgbouncer.

Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a java service.
Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed the  max_prepared_statements to 0 from the default (200) but no change was noticed.

How about search paths ? any difference on those between the two runs ? Do you set search_path in pgbouncer ? what is "cca." btw ?

The more interesting part is that when we issue an explain of the same query we get different plans. We did this a few seconds apart so there should be no difference in collected statistics. We ruled out prepared statements, as we suspected the generic plan might be the problem, but it is not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17 parameter that might be the cause of this?


Does this spawn any connections (such as dblink) ? are there limits per user/db pool_size in pgbouncer ?

No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain SQL (CTE, SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE,...) There are limits, but they are not hit. The query just uses a different plan and runs slower because of that.

Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend PgPool-II is completely passive, just passes through SQL to the server as fast as possible as it can. But I am sure you know that. Good luck, keep us posted!

Yes, that is what puzzles me.

What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server connections ?

How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of those? What's the isolation level ?

How about the user ? is this the same user doing pgadmin queries VS via the app ?

Can you identify the user under which the problem is manifested and :

ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';

ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; -- to help you debug the prepared statements .. just in case , and other stuff not printed by log_statement = all.

None of those parameters should affect the fact that when issuing the explain select query (the statement is not prepared) from psql directly gives a different result than issuing it over the pgbouncer connection. The result is repeatable.

We have rolled back pgbouncer to 1.12. and it seems the problem persists. This is one of the weirdest things I have ever seen with PostgreSQL.

Regards,
Mladen Marinović

  14. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> — 2025-05-05T14:08:03Z

    On 2025-May-05, Mladen Marinović wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Mystery not solved...but identified. The pool is in transaction mode and
> some connections use set enable_mergejoin=off, but they do not set it back
> to on.

Maybe instead of "SET enable_mergejoin=off" these connections could be
changed to use SET LOCAL enable_mergejoin=off.  That way, the setting
reverts to its original value automatically at the end of the
transaction.  It seems more appropriate when using transaction mode
anyway.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

  15. Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and pgBouncer...

    Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> — 2025-05-05T14:09:01Z

    On 5/5/25 14:26, Mladen Marinović wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mystery not solved...but identified. The pool is in transaction mode 
> and some connections use set enable_mergejoin=off, but they do not set 
> it back to on. Upon getting the connection from the pool the parameter 
> is still set to off causing the planner to not use this kind of join 
> which results in different plans when using this tainted pgbouncer 
> connection instead of the clean one from pg17.
>
> The problem is that server_reset_query is not used when the pool is in 
> transaction mode. Now, we have to see how to fix this problem.

But you've got this : https://www.pgbouncer.org/config.html

"


      server_reset_query_always

Whether |server_reset_query| should be run in all pooling modes. When 
this setting is off (default), the |server_reset_query| will be run only 
in pools that are in sessions-pooling mode. Connections in 
transaction-pooling mode should not have any need for a reset query.

This setting is for working around broken setups that run applications 
that use session features over a transaction-pooled PgBouncer. It 
changes non-deterministic breakage to deterministic breakage: Clients 
always lose their state after each transaction.

"


>
> Regards,
> Mladen Marinović
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 3:10 PM Efrain J. Berdecia 
> <ejberdecia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>     Is the query using parameter markers? Is the source executing the
>     query forcing a "bad" data type casting?
>
>     Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
>     <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=US_Acquisition_YMktg_315_SearchOrgConquer_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=US_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100002039&af_sub5=C01_Email_Static_&af_ios_store_cpp=0c38e4b0-a27e-40f9-a211-f4e2de32ab91&af_android_url=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yahoo.mobile.client.android.mail&listing=search_organize_conquer>
>
>         On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 8:52 AM, Mladen Marinović
>         <marin@kset.org> wrote:
>
>
>         On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 2:38 PM SERHAD ERDEM
>         <serhade@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>             Hi  , you had better try  vacuum  analyze for the whole db
>             ,   pgbouncer  connection layer can not causeslow queries.
>
>
>         I did that already. But the slow query is the consequence of
>         the different plan, not the statistics.
>
>             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             *From:* Mladen Marinović <marin@kset.org>
>             *Sent:* Monday, May 5, 2025 12:27 PM
>             *To:* Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
>             *Cc:* pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
>             <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
>             *Subject:* Re: Different execution plans in PG17 and
>             pgBouncer...
>
>
>             On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 12:07 PM Achilleas Mantzios
>             <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>
>                 On 5/5/25 11:00, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>
>
>
>                     On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Achilleas Mantzios
>                     <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
>
>
>                         On 5/5/25 09:52, Mladen Marinović wrote:
>
>                             Hi,
>
>                             We recently migrated our production
>                             instances from PG11 to PG17. While doing
>                             so we upgraded our pgBouncer instances
>                             from 1.12 to 1.24. As everything worked on
>                             the test servers we pushed this to
>                             production a few weeks ago. We did not
>                             notice any problems until a few days ago
>                             (but the problems were here from the
>                             start). The main manifestation of the
>                             problems is a service that runs a fixed
>                             query to get a backlog of unprocessed data
>                             (limited to a 1000 rows). When testing the
>                             query using pgAdmin connected directly to
>                             the database we get a result in cca. 20
>                             seconds. The same query runs for 2 hours
>                             when using pgBouncer to connect to the
>                             same database.
>
>
>                         That's a huge jump, I hope you guys did
>                         extensive testing of your app. In which
>                         language is your app written? If java, then
>                         define prepareThreshold=0 in your jdbc and set
>                         max_prepared_statements = 0 in pgbouncer.
>
>                     Mainly python, but the problem was noticed in a
>                     java service.
>                     Prepare treshold was already set to 0. We changed
>                     the max_prepared_statements to 0 from the default
>                     (200) but no change was noticed.
>
>                         How about search paths ? any difference on
>                         those between the two runs ? Do you set
>                         search_path in pgbouncer ? what is "cca." btw ?
>
>
>                             The more interesting part is that when we
>                             issue an explain of the same query we get
>                             different plans. We did this a few seconds
>                             apart so there should be no difference in
>                             collected statistics. We ruled out
>                             prepared statements, as we suspected the
>                             generic plan might be the problem, but it
>                             is not. Is there any pgBouncer or PG17
>                             parameter that might be the cause of this?
>
>
>                         Does this spawn any connections (such as
>                         dblink) ? are there limits per user/db
>                         pool_size in pgbouncer ?
>
>                     No additional connection nor dbling. Just plain
>                     SQL (CTE, SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE,...)
>                     There are limits, but they are not hit. The query
>                     just uses a different plan and runs slower because
>                     of that.
>
>                         Pgbouncer, in contrast to its old friend
>                         PgPool-II is completely passive, just passes
>                         through SQL to the server as fast as possible
>                         as it can. But I am sure you know that. Good
>                         luck, keep us posted!
>
>                     Yes, that is what puzzles me.
>
>                 What is the pgbouncer's timeout in the server
>                 connections ?
>
>                 How about "idle in transaction" ? do you get any of
>                 those? What's the isolation level ?
>
>                 How about the user ? is this the same user doing
>                 pgadmin queries VS via the app ?
>
>                 Can you identify the user under which the problem is
>                 manifested and :
>
>                 ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET log_statement = 'all';
>
>                 ALTER user "unlucky_user" SET
>                 log_min_duration_statement = 0; -- to help you debug
>                 the prepared statements .. just in case , and other
>                 stuff not printed by log_statement = all.
>
>             None of those parameters should affect the fact that when
>             issuing the explain select query (the statement is not
>             prepared) from psql directly gives a different result than
>             issuing it over the pgbouncer connection. The result is
>             repeatable.
>
>             We have rolled back pgbouncer to 1.12. and it seems the
>             problem persists. This is one of the weirdest things I
>             have ever seen with PostgreSQL.
>
>                     Regards,
>                     Mladen Marinović
>