Up until now, pg_plan_advice has had a feature that allows an advice
target to mention a partition name but omit the partition schema;
that is, something like SEQ_SCAN(foo/bar) forces a sequential scan on
every child of table foo whose partition name is bar, regardless of
the schema in which bar appears. However, that feature turns out to
have a nasty design flaw: while advice enforcement handles this case
just fine, the advice feedback code doesn't know about it and will
mark such advice as "matched, failed" even when everything worked
perfectly. Unfortunately, there seems to be no simple code fix for
this problem.
Since the release of PostgreSQL 19 is imminent, take the conservative
course and revert this feature of pg_plan_advice. In other words,
require the partition schema whenever the partition name is present.
You must now write e.g. SEQ_SCAN(foo/public.bar) rather than just
SEQ_SCAN(foo/bar). This doesn't affect any cases where automatically
generated advice is supplied, since generated advice has always
included the partition schema anyway. Manually written advice will
have to conform to the new, stricter rule. For a later release, we
can consider whether to again relax this restriction in some way,
but now is not the time to design new things.
Reported-by: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Backpatch-through: 19
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYmXy-jiP5qDhqNEiYFEBzQsArO6O2d9E8szNZqi1bePQ@mail.gmail.com
FOREIGN_JOIN target sublists must contain at least two relation
identifiers. However, the parser checked only for sublists with
exactly one identifier, so FOREIGN_JOIN(()) was accepted.
Reject sublists with fewer than two relation identifiers, and add
regression coverage.
Author: Chao Li <lic@highgo.com>
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/BEDC04E0-6732-4310-95BA-6EC34BC1442C@gmail.com
TOK_IDENT allows only non-keywords; identifier should be used
any place where either keywords or non-keywords should be accepted.
Hence, without this commit, any string that happens to be a keyword
can't be used as a partition schema, partition name, or plan name,
which is incorrect.
Author: Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAP53PkzKeD=t90OfeMsniYrcRe2THQbUx3g6wV17Y=ZtiwmWTQ@mail.gmail.com
Provide a facility that (1) can be used to stabilize certain plan choices
so that the planner cannot reverse course without authorization and
(2) can be used by knowledgeable users to insist on plan choices contrary
to what the planner believes best. In both cases, terrible outcomes are
possible: users should think twice and perhaps three times before
constraining the planner's ability to do as it thinks best; nevertheless,
there are problems that are much more easily solved with these facilities
than without them.
This patch takes the approach of analyzing a finished plan to produce
textual output, which we call "plan advice", that describes key
decisions made during plan; if that plan advice is provided during
future planning cycles, it will force those key decisions to be made in
the same way. Not all planner decisions can be controlled using advice;
for example, decisions about how to perform aggregation are currently
out of scope, as is choice of sort order. Plan advice can also be edited
by the user, or even written from scratch in simple cases, making it
possible to generate outcomes that the planner would not have produced.
Partial advice can be provided to control some planner outcomes but not
others.
Currently, plan advice is focused only on specific outcomes, such as
the choice to use a sequential scan for a particular relation, and not
on estimates that might contribute to those outcomes, such as a
possibly-incorrect selectivity estimate. While it would be useful to
users to be able to provide plan advice that affects selectivity
estimates or other aspects of costing, that is out of scope for this
commit.
Reviewed-by: Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>
Reviewed-by: Jakub Wartak <jakub.wartak@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Burd <greg@burd.me>
Reviewed-by: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Haibo Yan <tristan.yim@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Dian Fay <di@nmfay.com>
Reviewed-by: Ajay Pal <ajay.pal.k@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexandra Wang <alexandra.wang.oss@gmail.com>
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZ-Jh1T6QyWoCODMVQdhTUPYkaZjWztzP1En4=ZHoKPzw@mail.gmail.com
