socket_timeout includes queueing time in a shared, unconfigurable, process-wide thread pool, causing misleading QueryTimeoutErrors on unrelated queries
维护者通常 1 天内回复
还没有人认领这个 Issue。
评估
- 难度
- 5/5
- 预计耗时
- 一周以上
- 新手友好度
- 35/100
- Issue 类型
- 缺陷
- 描述清晰度
- 基本清楚
- 活跃度
- 活跃
- 技术栈
- postgresql, python
- 领域
- backend, databases, performance
调研方向
Start with utils/decorators.py, especially timeout() and preserve_transaction_status_with_timeout(), then trace services_container.get_thread_pool("DriverDialectExecutor"). Reproduce the reported contention with concurrent pg_sleep(8) calls and SELECT 1. Done should establish and test an agreed fix for queueing time and executor concurrency, rather than merely documenting the behavior.
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
描述
Describe the bug
socket_timeout is enforced by submitting the underlying driver call to a shared ThreadPoolExecutor and calling future.result(timeout=socket_timeout) (utils/decorators.py, timeout() / preserve_transaction_status_with_timeout()). That executor is a single, process-wide singleton — services_container.get_thread_pool("DriverDialectExecutor") — shared by every connection and every cursor operation in the process, not scoped per-connection and not related to the size of the caller's own DB connection pool. Its size is never set explicitly anywhere in the wrapper (get_thread_pool(name) is always called with no max_workers), so it falls back to Python's generic ThreadPoolExecutor default: min(32, os.cpu_count() + 4).
Because future.result(timeout=...) starts its clock at executor.submit(), not at the moment the submitted call actually starts running, any time a submission spends queued behind other in-flight driver calls counts fully against socket_timeout. If enough concurrent driver calls are in flight to fill that small, fixed-size pool (very plausible for any app that pools more DB connections than cpu_count + 4, which is a common and reasonable configuration), unrelated and otherwise-trivially-fast queries start timing out — not because they're slow, but because they never got a worker thread in time. The resulting QueryTimeoutError is indistinguishable from a genuine slow query/lock wait, which makes this very hard to diagnose: the error attributes to whatever SQL happened to be queued, with no indication the real cause is thread-pool contention from unrelated concurrent calls elsewhere in the process.
Expected Behavior
socket_timeout should bound the time the actual driver/socket operation takes to execute, not scheduling delay inside an internal, undocumented thread pool. At minimum, the pool used to enforce this timeout should either scale with the caller's configured connection concurrency (e.g. pool size) or be explicitly configurable, so that setting a connection pool size larger than cpu_count + 4 doesn't silently create a hidden concurrency ceiling that's lower than the connection pool itself.
What plugins are used? What other connection properties were set?
plugins="iam", wrapper_dialect="rds-pg", wrapper_driver_dialect="psycopg"
Current Behavior
Under a burst of concurrent database contention (in our case: multiple concurrent transactions blocked on a Postgres row lock, each occupying a worker thread in DriverDialectExecutor for up to their full socket_timeout while waiting on Cursor.execute), a completely unrelated query — targeting a different table with no lock contention of its own — also raised QueryTimeoutError on Cursor.execute, having exceeded its 5 second socket_timeout.
We confirmed that this specific statement showed negligible database-side load and an average execution latency of 0.84ms across the whole incident window — i.e., the statement itself was never slow at the database. This is consistent with the delay happening entirely client-side: the call was queued in the shared DriverDialectExecutor pool behind the other concurrently-blocked calls, and the queueing time alone exceeded the 5 second timeout before the query was ever dispatched to Postgres.
Reproduction Steps
This can be reproduced by saturating the shared executor with concurrent slow calls:
- On a host/container where
os.cpu_count()is small (e.g. 2, giving a default pool size ofmin(32, 2+4) = 6), openN > 6connections viaAwsWrapperConnection.connect(psycopg.connect, ..., socket_timeout=5). - On
N - 1of those connections, concurrently (e.g. one thread per connection) execute a query that runs longer thansocket_timeoutbut well under the connection's own network timeout — e.g.SELECT pg_sleep(8)— so each of those calls occupies aDriverDialectExecutorworker thread for ~8 seconds. - On one additional, otherwise-idle connection, concurrently execute a trivial, instantaneous query:
SELECT 1. - Observe: the
SELECT 1call raisesaws_advanced_python_wrapper.QueryTimeoutError(Cursor.executetimeout) even thoughSELECT 1never reaches the database in a way that would take anywhere near 5 seconds — it's queued behind the 6pg_sleep(8)calls in the shared pool and itsfuture.result(timeout=5)clock (started at submission) expires first.
Possible Solution
A few options, roughly in order of how much they'd change existing behavior:
- Expose the
DriverDialectExecutor(and equivalent per-dialect) pool size as a configurable wrapper property (e.g.DRIVER_DIALECT_EXECUTOR_MAX_WORKERS), defaulting to something scaled to expected DB concurrency rather thancpu_count + 4. - Size the pool based on the connection provider's own pool configuration (e.g.
pool_size + max_overflow) when a pooled connection provider is in use, so it can't become a stricter bottleneck than the connection pool it's serving. - At minimum, document clearly that
socket_timeoutincludes time spent queued in a shared, process-wide thread pool of this default size, so callers can reason about whether their expected concurrent query volume can exceed it.
Additional Information/Context
No response
The AWS Advanced Python Wrapper version used
3.0.0
python version used
3.13.15
Operating System and version
Debian 13 (Trixie)
- 主要语言
- Python
- 星标
- 99
- 派生
- 22
- 平均合并
- 1 天 7 小时
- 30 天内合并 PR
- 4
环境准备
- 没有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
- 有 Pull Request 模板
- 阅读贡献指南
从这里开始
- 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
- Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
- 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。
aws/aws-advanced-python-wrapper 的其他 Issue
-
[aio] host_monitoring_v2 without a topology plugin fails the first statement on cluster-endpoint connections可能已有人在做 @AhmadMasry 今天认领。 未关闭
难度 4/5 3-5 天 新手友好度 49/100
aws/aws-advanced-python-wrapper#1288 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
[aio] host_monitoring_v2: event loops stop each other's monitors, recreating them on every statement可能已有人在做 @AhmadMasry 今天认领。 未关闭
难度 4/5 3-5 天 新手友好度 35/100
aws/aws-advanced-python-wrapper#1287 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
Async: every connection opens its own topology monitor connection (pool of N holds 2N connections)可能已有人在做 @AhmadMasry 今天认领。 未关闭
难度 4/5 3-5 天 新手友好度 25/100
aws/aws-advanced-python-wrapper#1284 · 1 条评论 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
bug
难度 4/5 3-5 天 新手友好度 72/100
aws/aws-advanced-python-wrapper#1276 · 2 条评论 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
bug
难度 4/5 3-5 天 新手友好度 48/100
aws/aws-advanced-python-wrapper#1275 · 1 条评论 ·
维护者通常 1 天内回复
查看 aws/aws-advanced-python-wrapper 的全部 Issue
相似的 Issue
-
难度 1/5 1 小时以内 新手友好度 92/100
-
Harmony OPeNDAP SubSetter (HOSS) Geographic LARC_CLOUD PREFIRE_SAT2_AUX-SAT R01 production
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 68/100
nasa/harmony-autotester#245 ·
-
enhancement
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 68/100
Deltares/imod-python#1928 ·
-
难度 1/5 1 小时以内 新手友好度 88/100
维护者通常 1 天内回复
-
feature
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 66/100