The path we wish to reparameterize is not a standalone object:
in particular, it implicitly references baserestrictinfo clauses
in the associated RelOptInfo, and if it's a SampleScan path then
there is also the TableSampleClause in the RTE to worry about.
Both of those could contain lateral references to the join partner
relation, which would need to be modified to refer to its child.
Since we aren't doing that, affected queries can give wrong answers,
or odd failures such as "variable not found in subplan target list",
or executor crashes. But we can't just summarily modify those
expressions, because they are shared with other paths for the rel.
We'd break things if we modify them and then end up using some
non-partitioned-join path.
In HEAD, we plan to fix this by postponing reparameterization
until create_plan(), when we know that those other paths are
no longer of interest, and then adjusting those expressions along
with the ones in the path itself. That seems like too big a change
for stable branches however. In the back branches, let's just detect
whether any troublesome lateral references actually exist in those
expressions, and fail reparameterization if so. This will result in
not performing a partitioned join in such cases. Given the lack of
field complaints, nobody's likely to miss the optimization.
Report and patch by Richard Guo. Apply to 12-16 only, since
the intended fix for HEAD looks quite different. We're not quite
ready to push the HEAD fix, but with back-branch releases coming
up soon, it seems wise to get this stopgap fix in place there.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs496+N=UAjOc=rcD3P7B6oJe4rZw08e_TZRUsWbPxZW3Tw@mail.gmail.com
The code for wrapping subquery output expressions in PlaceHolderVars
believed that if the expression already was a PlaceHolderVar, it was
never necessary to wrap that in another one. That's wrong if the
expression is underneath an outer join and involves a lateral
reference to outside that scope: failing to add an additional PHV
risks evaluating the expression at the wrong place and hence not
forcing it to null when the outer join should do so. This is an
oversight in commit 9e7e29c75, which added logic to forcibly wrap
lateral-reference Vars in PlaceHolderVars, but didn't see that the
adjacent case for PlaceHolderVars needed the same treatment.
The test case we have for this doesn't fail before 4be058fe9, but now
that I see the problem I wonder if it is possible to demonstrate
related errors before that. That's moot though, since all such
branches are out of support.
Per bug #18284 from Holger Reise. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18284-47505a20c23647f8@postgresql.org
contain_mutable_functions and contain_volatile_functions give
reliable answers only after expression preprocessing (specifically
eval_const_expressions). Some places understand this, but some did
not get the memo --- which is not entirely their fault, because the
problem is documented only in places far away from those functions.
Introduce wrapper functions that allow doing the right thing easily,
and add commentary in hopes of preventing future mistakes from
copy-and-paste of code that's only conditionally safe.
Two actual bugs of this ilk are fixed here. We failed to preprocess
column GENERATED expressions before checking mutability, so that the
code could fail to detect the use of a volatile function
default-argument expression, or it could reject a polymorphic function
that is actually immutable on the datatype of interest. Likewise,
column DEFAULT expressions weren't preprocessed before determining if
it's safe to apply the attmissingval mechanism. A false negative
would just result in an unnecessary table rewrite, but a false
positive could allow the attmissingval mechanism to be used in a case
where it should not be, resulting in unexpected initial values in a
new column.
In passing, re-order the steps in ComputePartitionAttrs so that its
checks for invalid column references are done before applying
expression_planner, rather than after. The previous coding would
not complain if a partition expression contains a disallowed column
reference that gets optimized away by constant folding, which seems
to me to be a behavior we do not want.
Per bug #18097 from Jim Keener. Back-patch to all supported versions.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18097-ebb179674f22932f@postgresql.org
When an UPDATE/DELETE/MERGE's target table is an old-style
inheritance tree, it's possible for the parent to get excluded
from the plan while some children are not. (I believe this is
only possible if we can prove that a CHECK ... NO INHERIT
constraint on the parent contradicts the query WHERE clause,
so it's a very unusual case.) In such a case, ExecInitModifyTable
mistakenly concluded that the first surviving child is the target
table, leading to at least two bugs:
1. The wrong table's statement-level triggers would get fired.
2. In v16 and up, it was possible to fail with "invalid perminfoindex
0 in RTE with relid nnnn" due to the child RTE not having permissions
data included in the query plan. This was hard to reproduce reliably
because it did not occur unless the update triggered some non-HOT
index updates.
In v14 and up, this is easy to fix by defining ModifyTable.rootRelation
to be the parent RTE in plain inheritance as well as partitioned cases.
While the wrong-triggers bug also appears in older branches, the
relevant code in both the planner and executor is quite a bit
different, so it would take a good deal of effort to develop and
test a suitable patch. Given the lack of field complaints about the
trigger issue, I'll desist for now. (Patching v11 for this seems
unwise anyway, given that it will have no more releases after next
month.)
Per bug #18147 from Hans Buschmann.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18147-6fc796538913ee88@postgresql.org
Under some circumstances, concurrent MERGE operations could lead to
inconsistent results, that varied according the plan chosen. This was
caused by a lack of rowmarks on the source relation, which meant that
EvalPlanQual rechecking was not guaranteed to return the same source
tuples when re-running the join query.
Fix by ensuring that preprocess_rowmarks() sets up PlanRowMarks for
all non-target relations used in MERGE, in the same way that it does
for UPDATE and DELETE.
Per bug #18103. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18103-c4386baab8e355e3%40postgresql.org
Tid Range scans were added back in bb437f995. That commit forgot to add
handling for TidRangePaths in print_path().
Only people building with OPTIMIZER_DEBUG might have noticed this, which
likely is the reason it's taken 4 years for anyone to notice.
Author: Andrey Lepikhov
Reported-by: Andrey Lepikhov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/379082d6-1b6a-4cd6-9ecf-7157d8c08635@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch-through: 14, where bb437f995 was introduced
Parse analysis of a CallStmt will inject mutable information,
for instance the OID of the called procedure, so that subsequent
DDL may create a need to re-parse the CALL. We failed to detect
this for CALLs in plpgsql routines, because no dependency information
was collected when putting a CallStmt into the plan cache. That
could lead to misbehavior or strange errors such as "cache lookup
failed".
Before commit ee895a655, the issue would only manifest for CALLs
appearing in atomic contexts, because we re-planned non-atomic
CALLs every time through anyway.
It is now apparent that extract_query_dependencies() probably
needs a special case for every utility statement type for which
stmt_requires_parse_analysis() returns true. I wanted to add
something like Assert(!stmt_requires_parse_analysis(...)) when
falling out of extract_query_dependencies_walker without doing
anything, but there are API issues as well as a more fundamental
point: stmt_requires_parse_analysis is supposed to be applied to
raw parser output, so it'd be cheating to assume it will give the
correct answer for post-parse-analysis trees. I contented myself
with adding a comment.
Per bug #18131 from Christian Stork. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18131-576854e79c5cd264@postgresql.org
The comment introduced by commit e7cb7ee14 was a bit too terse, which
could lead to extensions doing different things within the hook function
than we intend to allow. Extend the comment to explain what they can do
within the hook function.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
In passing, I rephrased a nearby comment that I recently added to the
back branches.
Reviewed by David Rowley and Andrei Lepikhov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPmGK15SBPA1nr3Aqsdm%2BYyS-ay0Ayo2BRYQ8_A2To9eLqwopQ%40mail.gmail.com
Both 50e17ad28 and 29f45e299 mistakenly tried to record a plan dependency
on a function but mistakenly inverted the OidIsValid test. This meant
that we'd record a dependency only when the function's Oid was
InvalidOid. Clearly this was meant to *not* record the dependency in
that case.
50e17ad28 made this mistake first, then in v15 29f45e299 copied the same
mistake.
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Backpatch-through: 14, where 50e17ad28 first made this mistake
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2277537.1694301772@sss.pgh.pa.us
The use of Memoize was already disabled in normal joins when the join
conditions had volatile functions per the code in
match_opclause_to_indexcol(). Ordinarily, the parameterization for the
inner side of a nested loop will be an Index Scan or at least eventually
lead to an index scan (perhaps nested several joins deep). However, for
lateral joins, that's not the case and seq scans can be parameterized
too, so we can't rely on match_opclause_to_indexcol().
Here we explicitly check the parameterization for volatile functions and
don't consider the generation of a Memoize path when such functions
are present.
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs49nHFnHbpepLsv_yF3qkpCS4BdB-v8HoJVv8_=Oat0u_w@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was introduced
Commit e7cb7ee14, which introduced the infrastructure for FDWs and
custom scan providers to replace joins with scans, failed to add support
handling of pseudoconstant quals assigned to replaced joins in
createplan.c, leading to an incorrect plan without a gating Result node
when postgres_fdw replaced a join with such a qual.
To fix, we could add the support by 1) modifying the ForeignPath and
CustomPath structs to store the list of RestrictInfo nodes to apply to
the join, as in JoinPaths, if they represent foreign and custom scans
replacing a join with a scan, and by 2) modifying create_scan_plan() in
createplan.c to use that list in that case, instead of the
baserestrictinfo list, to get pseudoconstant quals assigned to the join;
but #1 would cause an ABI break. So fix by modifying the infrastructure
to just disallow replacing joins with such quals.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Reported by Nishant Sharma. Patch by me, reviewed by Nishant Sharma and
Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADrsxdbcN1vejBaf8a%2BQhrZY5PXL-04mCd4GDu6qm6FigDZd6Q%40mail.gmail.com
This commit reverts the work done by commits 3ba59ccc89 and 72e78d831a.
Those commits were incorrect in asserting that we never acquire any other
heavy-weight lock after acquring page lock other than relation extension
lock. We can acquire a lock on catalogs while doing catalog look up after
acquring page lock.
This won't impact any existing feature but we need to think some other way
to achieve this before parallelizing other write operations or even
improving the parallelism in vacuum (like allowing multiple workers
for an index).
Reported-by: Jaime Casanova
Author: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJKUy5jffnRKNvRHKQ0LynRb0RJC-o4P8Ku3x9vGAVLwDBWumQ@mail.gmail.com
If the inner-side expressions contain PARAM_EXEC Params, we must
re-hash whenever the values of those Params change. The executor
mechanism for that exists already, but we failed to invoke it because
finalize_plan() neglected to search the Hash.hashkeys field for
Params. This allowed a previous scan's hash table to be re-used
when it should not be, leading to rows missing from the join's output.
(I believe incorrectly-included join rows are impossible however,
since checking the real hashclauses would reject false matches.)
This bug is very ancient, dating probably to d24d75ff1 of 7.4.
Sadly, this simple fix depends on the plan representational changes
made by 2abd7ae9b, so it will only work back to v12. I thought
about trying to make some kind of hack for v11, but I'm leery
of putting code significantly different from what is used in the
newer branches into a nearly-EOL branch. Seeing that the bug
escaped detection for a full twenty years, problematic cases
must be rare; so I don't feel too awful about leaving v11 as-is.
Per bug #17985 from Zuming Jiang. Back-patch to v12.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17985-748b66607acd432e@postgresql.org
Here we adjust relation_has_unique_index_for() so that it no longer makes
use of partial unique indexes as uniqueness proofs. It is incorrect to
use these as the predicates used by check_index_predicates() to set
predOK makes use of not only baserestrictinfo quals as proofs, but also
qual from join conditions. For relation_has_unique_index_for()'s case, we
need to know the relation is unique for a given set of columns before any
joins are evaluated, so if predOK was only set to true due to some join
qual, then it's unsafe to use such indexes in
relation_has_unique_index_for(). The final plan may not even make use
of that index, which could result in reading tuples that are not as
unique as the planner previously expected them to be.
Bug: #17975
Reported-by: Tor Erik Linnerud
Backpatch-through: 11, all supported versions
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17975-98a90c156f25c952%40postgresql.org
If an SRF in the FROM clause references a table having row-level
security policies, and we inline that SRF into the calling query,
we neglected to mark the plan as potentially dependent on which
role is executing it. This could lead to later executions in the
same session returning or hiding rows that should have been hidden
or returned instead.
Our thanks to Wolfgang Walther for reporting this problem.
Stephen Frost and Tom Lane
Security: CVE-2023-2455
Our policy since commit ab77a5a45 has been that a plan node having
any initplans is automatically not parallel-safe. (This could be
relaxed, but not today.) clean_up_removed_plan_level neglected
this, and could attach initplans to a parallel-safe child plan
node without clearing the plan's parallel-safe flag. That could
lead to "subplan was not initialized" errors at runtime, in case
an initplan referenced another one and only the referencing one
got transmitted to parallel workers.
The fix in clean_up_removed_plan_level is trivial enough.
materialize_finished_plan also moves initplans from one node
to another, but it's okay because it already copies the source
node's parallel_safe flag. The other place that does this kind
of thing is standard_planner's hack to inject a top-level Gather
when debug_parallel_query is active. But that's actually dead
code given that we're correctly enforcing the "initplans aren't
parallel safe" rule, so just replace it with an Assert that
there are no initplans.
Also improve some related comments.
Normally we'd add a regression test case for this sort of bug.
The mistake itself is already reached by existing tests, but there
is accidentally no visible problem. The only known test case that
creates an actual failure seems too indirect and fragile to justify
keeping it as a regression test (not least because it fails to fail
in v11, though the bug is clearly present there too).
Per report from Justin Pryzby. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZDVt6MaNWkRDO1LQ@telsasoft.com
MERGE planning could fail with "variable not found in subplan target
list" if the target table is partitioned and all its partitions are
excluded at plan time, or in the case where it has no partitions but
used to have some. This happened because distribute_row_identity_vars
thought it didn't need to make the target table's reltarget list
fully valid; but if we generate a join plan then that is required
because the dummy Result node's tlist will be made from the reltarget.
The same logic appears in distribute_row_identity_vars in v14,
but AFAICS the problem is unreachable in that branch for lack of
MERGE. In other updating statements, the target table is always
inner-joined to any other tables, so if the target is known dummy
then the whole plan reduces to dummy, so no join nodes are created.
So I'll refrain from back-patching this code change to v14 for now.
Per report from Alvaro Herrera.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230328112248.6as34mlx5sr4kltg@alvherre.pgsql
The logic added in 9d9c02ccd to determine when a qual can be used as a
WindowClause run condition failed to correctly check for subqueries in the
qual. This was being done correctly for normal subquery qual pushdowns,
it's just that 9d9c02ccd failed to follow the lead on that.
This also fixes various other cases where transforming the qual into a
WindowClause run condition in the subquery should have been disallowed.
Bug: #17826
Reported-by: Anban Company
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17826-7d8750952f19a5f5@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 15, where 9d9c02ccd was introduced.
preprocess_targetlist thought PHVs couldn't appear here.
It was mistaken, as per report from Önder Kalacı.
Surveying other pull_var_clause calls, I noted no similar errors,
but I did notice that qual_is_pushdown_safe's assertion about
!contain_window_function was pointless, because the following
pull_var_clause call would complain about them anyway. In HEAD
only, remove the redundant Assert and improve the commentary.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CACawEhUuum-gC_2S3sXLTcsk7bUSPSHOD+g1ZpfKaDK-KKPPWA@mail.gmail.com
This was not something that required consideration before MERGE
was invented; but MERGE builds a join tree that left-joins to the
result relation, meaning that remove_useless_joins will consider
removing it. That should generally be stopped by the query's use
of output variables from the result relation. However, if the
result relation is inherited (e.g. a partitioned table) then
we don't add any row identity variables to the query until
expand_inherited_rtentry, which happens after join removal.
This was exposed as of commit 3c569049b, which made it possible
to deduce that a partitioned table could contain at most one row
matching a join key, enabling removal of the not-yet-expanded
result relation. Ooops.
To fix, let's just teach join_is_removable that the query result
rel is never removable. It's a cheap enough test in any case,
and it'll save some cycles that we'd otherwise expend in proving
that it's not removable, even in the cases we got right.
Back-patch to v15 where MERGE was added. Although I think the
case cannot be reached in v15, this seems like cheap insurance.
Per investigation of a report from Alexander Lakhin.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/36bee393-b351-16ac-93b2-d46d83637e45@gmail.com
We were identifying the updatable generated columns of inheritance
children by transposing the calculation made for their parent.
However, there's nothing that says a traditional-inheritance child
can't have generated columns that aren't there in its parent, or that
have different dependencies than are in the parent's expression.
(At present it seems that we don't enforce that for partitioning
either, which is likely wrong to some degree or other; but the case
clearly needs to be handled with traditional inheritance.)
Hence, drop the very-klugy-anyway "extraUpdatedCols" RTE field
in favor of identifying which generated columns depend on updated
columns during executor startup. In HEAD we can remove
extraUpdatedCols altogether; in back branches, it's still there but
always empty. Another difference between the HEAD and back-branch
versions of this patch is that in HEAD we can add the new bitmap field
to ResultRelInfo, but that would cause an ABI break in back branches.
Like 4b3e37993, add a List field at the end of struct EState instead.
Back-patch to v13. The bogus calculation is also being made in v12,
but it doesn't have the same visible effect because we don't use it
to decide which generated columns to recalculate; as a consequence of
which the patch doesn't apply easily. I think that there might still
be a demonstrable bug associated with trigger firing conditions, but
that's such a weird corner-case usage that I'm content to leave it
unfixed in v12.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFshLKNvQUd1DgwJ-7tsTp=dwv7KZqXC4j2wYBV1aCDUA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2793383.1672944799@sss.pgh.pa.us
While on it, newlines are removed from the end of two elog() strings.
The others are simple grammar mistakes. One comment in pg_upgrade
referred incorrectly to sequences since a7e5457.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20221230231257.GI1153@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 11
Andrey Lepikhov demonstrated a case where we spend an unreasonable
amount of time in pull_up_subqueries(). Not only is that recursing
with no explicit check for stack overrun, but the code seems not
interruptable by control-C. Let's stick a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS
there, along with sprinkling some stack depth checks.
An actual fix for the excessive time consumption seems a bit
risky to back-patch; but this isn't, so let's do so.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/703c09a2-08f3-d2ec-b33d-dbecd62428b8@postgrespro.ru
9d9c02ccd added code to allow WindowAgg to take some shortcuts when a
monotonic WindowFunc reached some value that it could never come back
from due to the function's monotonic nature. That commit added a
runCondition field to WindowClause to store the condition which, when it
becomes false we can start taking shortcuts in nodeWindowAgg.c.
Here we fix an issue where subquery pullups didn't properly update the
runCondition to update the Vars to properly reference the new query level.
Here we also add a missing call to preprocess_expression() for the
WindowClause's runCondtion. The WindowFuncs in the targetlist will have
had this process done, so we must also do it for the WindowFuncs in the
runCondition so that they can be correctly found in the targetlist
during setrefs.c
Bug: #17709
Reported-by: Alexey Makhmutov
Author: Richard Guo, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17709-4f557160e3e8ee9a@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 15, where 9d9c02ccd was introduced
9d9c02ccd added window "run conditions", which allows the evaluation of
monotonic window functions to be skipped when the run condition is no
longer true. Prior to this commit, once the run condition was no longer
true and we stopped evaluating the window functions, we simply just left
the ecxt_aggvalues[] and ecxt_aggnulls[] arrays alone to store whatever
value was stored there the last time the window function was evaluated.
Leaving a stale value in there isn't really a problem on 64-bit builds as
all of the window functions which we recognize as monotonic all return
int8, which is passed by value on 64-bit builds. However, on 32-bit
builds, this was a problem as the value stored in the ecxt_values[]
element would be a by-ref value and it would be pointing to some memory
which would get reset once the tuple context is destroyed. Since the
WindowAgg node will output these values in the resulting tupleslot, this
could be problematic for the top-level WindowAgg node which must look at
these values to filter out the rows that don't meet its filter condition.
Here we fix this by just zeroing the ecxt_aggvalues[] and setting the
ecxt_aggnulls[] array to true when the run condition first becomes false.
This results in the WindowAgg's output having NULLs for the WindowFunc's
columns rather than the stale or pointer pointing to possibly freed
memory. These tuples with the NULLs can only make it as far as the
top-level WindowAgg node before they're filtered out. To ensure that
these tuples *are* always filtered out, we now insist that OpExprs making
up the run condition are strict OpExprs. Currently, all the window
functions which the planner recognizes as monotonic return INT8 and the
operator which is used for the run condition must be a member of a btree
opclass. In reality, these restrictions exclude nothing that's built-in
to Postgres and are unlikely to exclude anyone's custom operators due to
the requirement that the operator is part of a btree opclass. It would be
unusual if those were not strict.
Reported-by: Sergey Shinderuk, using valgrind
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo, Sergey Shinderuk
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/29184c50-429a-ebd7-f1fb-0589c6723a35@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch-through: 15, where 9d9c02ccd was added
A couple of places weren't up to speed for this. By sheer good
luck, we didn't fail but just selected a non-memoized join plan,
at least in the test case we have. Nonetheless, it's a bug,
and I'm not quite sure that it couldn't have worse consequences
in other examples. So back-patch to v14 where Memoize came in.
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48GkNom272sfp0-WeD6_0HSR19BJ4H1c9ZKSfbVnJsvRg@mail.gmail.com
It neglected to recurse to the subpath, meaning you'd get back
a path identical to the input. This could produce wrong query
results if the omission meant that the subpath fails to enforce
some join clause it should be enforcing. We don't have a test
case for this at the moment, but the code is obviously broken
and the fix is equally obvious. Back-patch to v14 where
Memoize was introduced.
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4_R=ORpz=Lkn2q3ebPC5EuWyfZF+tmfCPVLBVK5W39mHA@mail.gmail.com
We might fail to generate a partitionwise join, because
reparameterize_path_by_child() does not support all path types.
This should not be a hard failure condition: we should just fall back
to a non-partitioned join. However, generate_partitionwise_join_paths
did not consider this possibility and would emit the (misleading)
error "could not devise a query plan for the given query" if we'd
failed to make any paths for a child join. Fix it to give up on
partitionwise joining if so. (The accepted technique for giving up
appears to be to set rel->nparts = 0, which I find pretty bizarre,
but there you have it.)
I have not added a test case because there'd be little point:
any omissions of this sort that we identify would soon get fixed
by extending reparameterize_path_by_child(), so the test would stop
proving anything. However, right now there is a known test case based
on failure to cover MaterialPath, and with that I've found that this
is broken in all supported versions. Hence, patch all the way back.
Original report and patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for
identifying a test case that works against committed versions.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1854233.1669949723@sss.pgh.pa.us
The JOIN_SEMI case Assert'ed that there are no PlaceHolderVars that
need to be evaluated at the semijoin's RHS, which is wrong because
there could be some in the semijoin's qual condition. However, there
could not be any references further up than that, and within the qual
there is not any way that such a PHV could have gone to null yet, so
we don't really need the PHV and there is no need to avoid making the
RHS-removal optimization. The upshot is that there's no actual bug
in production code, and we ought to just remove this misguided Assert.
While we're here, also drop the JOIN_RIGHT case, which is dead code
because reduce_outer_joins() already got rid of JOIN_RIGHT.
Per bug #17700 from Xin Wen. Uselessness of the JOIN_RIGHT case
pointed out by Richard Guo. Back-patch to v12 where this code
was added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17700-2b5c10d917c30687@postgresql.org
The executor will dump core if it's asked to execute a seqscan on
a relation having no table AM, such as a view. While that shouldn't
really happen, it's possible to get there via catalog corruption,
such as a missing ON SELECT rule. It seems worth installing a defense
against that. There are multiple plausible places for such a defense,
but I picked the planner's get_relation_info().
Per discussion of bug #17646 from Kui Liu. Back-patch to v12 where
the tableam APIs were introduced; in older versions you won't get a
SIGSEGV, so it seems less pressing.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17646-70c93cfa40365776@postgresql.org
While directly targetting a foreign table with MERGE was already
expressly forbidden, we failed to catch the case of a partitioned table
that has a foreign table as a partition; and the result if you try is an
incomprehensible error. Fix that by adding a specific check.
Backpatch to 15.
Reported-by: Tatsuhiro Nakamori <bt22nakamorit@oss.nttdata.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/bt22nakamorit@oss.nttdata.com
This reverts commit db0d67db24 and
several follow-on fixes. The idea of making a cost-based choice
of the order of the sorting columns is not fundamentally unsound,
but it requires cost information and data statistics that we don't
really have. For example, relying on procost to distinguish the
relative costs of different sort comparators is pretty pointless
so long as most such comparator functions are labeled with cost 1.0.
Moreover, estimating the number of comparisons done by Quicksort
requires more than just an estimate of the number of distinct values
in the input: you also need some idea of the sizes of the larger
groups, if you want an estimate that's good to better than a factor of
three or so. That's data that's often unknown or not very reliable.
Worse, to arrive at estimates of the number of calls made to the
lower-order-column comparison functions, the code needs to make
estimates of the numbers of distinct values of multiple columns,
which are necessarily even less trustworthy than per-column stats.
Even if all the inputs are perfectly reliable, the cost algorithm
as-implemented cannot offer useful information about how to order
sorting columns beyond the point at which the average group size
is estimated to drop to 1.
Close inspection of the code added by db0d67db2 shows that there
are also multiple small bugs. These could have been fixed, but
there's not much point if we don't trust the estimates to be
accurate in-principle.
Finally, the changes in cost_sort's behavior made for very large
changes (often a factor of 2 or so) in the cost estimates for all
sorting operations, not only those for multi-column GROUP BY.
That naturally changes plan choices in many situations, and there's
precious little evidence to show that the changes are for the better.
Given the above doubts about whether the new estimates are really
trustworthy, it's hard to summon much confidence that these changes
are better on the average.
Since we're hard up against the release deadline for v15, let's
revert these changes for now. We can always try again later.
Note: in v15, I left T_PathKeyInfo in place in nodes.h even though
it's unreferenced. Removing it would be an ABI break, and it seems
a bit late in the release cycle for that.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/TYAPR01MB586665EB5FB2C3807E893941F5579@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
The header comment for get_cheapest_group_keys_order() claimed that the
output arguments were set to a newly allocated list which may be freed by
the calling function, however, this was not always true as the function
would simply leave these arguments untouched in some cases.
This tripped me up when working on 1349d2790 as I mistakenly assumed I
could perform a list_concat with the output parameters. That turned out
bad due to list_concat modifying the original input lists.
In passing, make it more clear that the number of distinct values is
important to reduce tiebreaks during sorts. Also, explain what the
n_preordered parameter means.
Backpatch-through: 15, where get_cheapest_group_keys_order was introduced.
In 29f45e299, we added support for optimizing the execution of NOT
IN(values) by using a hash table instead of a linear search over the
array. That commit neglected to update the header comment for
convert_saop_to_hashed_saop() to mention this fact. Here we fix that.
Author: James Coleman
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe99NUpAPcxgchGstgM23fmiGjqQPot8627YgkBgNt=BfA@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 15, where 29f45e299 was added.
The reverts the following and makes some associated cleanups:
commit f79b803dc: Common SQL/JSON clauses
commit f4fb45d15: SQL/JSON constructors
commit 5f0adec25: Make STRING an unreserved_keyword.
commit 33a377608: IS JSON predicate
commit 1a36bc9db: SQL/JSON query functions
commit 606948b05: SQL JSON functions
commit 49082c2cc: RETURNING clause for JSON() and JSON_SCALAR()
commit 4e34747c8: JSON_TABLE
commit fadb48b00: PLAN clauses for JSON_TABLE
commit 2ef6f11b0: Reduce running time of jsonb_sqljson test
commit 14d3f24fa: Further improve jsonb_sqljson parallel test
commit a6baa4bad: Documentation for SQL/JSON features
commit b46bcf7a4: Improve readability of SQL/JSON documentation.
commit 112fdb352: Fix finalization for json_objectagg and friends
commit fcdb35c32: Fix transformJsonBehavior
commit 4cd8717af: Improve a couple of sql/json error messages
commit f7a605f63: Small cleanups in SQL/JSON code
commit 9c3d25e17: Fix JSON_OBJECTAGG uniquefying bug
commit a79153b7a: Claim SQL standard compliance for SQL/JSON features
commit a1e7616d6: Rework SQL/JSON documentation
commit 8d9f9634e: Fix errors in copyfuncs/equalfuncs support for JSON node types.
commit 3c633f32b: Only allow returning string types or bytea from json_serialize
commit 67b26703b: expression eval: Fix EEOP_JSON_CONSTRUCTOR and EEOP_JSONEXPR size.
The release notes are also adjusted.
Backpatch to release 15.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/40d2c882-bcac-19a9-754d-4299e1d87ac7@postgresql.org
Commit fac1b470a thought we could check for set-returning functions
by testing only the top-level node in an expression tree. This is
wrong in itself, and to make matters worse it encouraged others
to make the same mistake, by exporting tlist.c's special-purpose
IS_SRF_CALL() as a widely-visible macro. I can't find any evidence
that anyone's taken the bait, but it was only a matter of time.
Use expression_returns_set() instead, and stuff the IS_SRF_CALL()
genie back in its bottle, this time with a warning label. I also
added a couple of cross-reference comments.
After a fair amount of fooling around, I've despaired of making
a robust test case that exposes the bug reliably, so no test case
here. (Note that the test case added by fac1b470a is itself
broken, in that it doesn't notice if you remove the code change.
The repro given by the bug submitter currently doesn't fail either
in v15 or HEAD, though I suspect that may indicate an unrelated bug.)
Per bug #17564 from Martijn van Oosterhout. Back-patch to v13,
as the faulty patch was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17564-c7472c2f90ef2da3@postgresql.org
Two callers of generate_useful_gather_paths were testing the wrong
thing when deciding whether to call that function: they checked for
being at the top of the current join subproblem, rather than being at
the actual top join. This'd result in failing to construct parallel
paths for a sub-join for which they might be useful.
While set_rel_pathlist() isn't actively broken, it seems best to
make its identical-in-intention test for this be like the other two.
This has been wrong all along, but given the lack of field complaints
I'm hesitant to back-patch into stable branches; we usually prefer
to avoid non-bug-fix changes in plan choices in minor releases.
It seems not too late for v15 though.
Richard Guo, reviewed by Antonin Houska and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-mH8Zf87-w+3P2J=nJB+5OyicO28ia9q_9o=Lamf_VHg@mail.gmail.com
There are a few things that we could do a little better within
get_cheapest_group_keys_order():
1. We should be using list_free() rather than pfree() on a List.
2. We should use for_each_from() instead of manually coding a for loop to
skip the first n elements of a List
3. list_truncate(list_copy(...), n) is not a great way to copy the first n
elements of a list. Let's invent list_copy_head() for that. That way we
don't need to copy the entire list just to truncate it directly
afterwards.
4. We can simplify finding the cheapest cost by setting the cheapest cost
variable to DBL_MAX. That allows us to skip special-casing the initial
iteration of the loop.
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrGyL3ft8waEkncG9y5HDMu5TFFJB1paoTC8zi9YK97Nw@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 15, where get_cheapest_group_keys_order was added.
This function can be called from mark_async_capable_plan(), a helper
function for create_append_plan(), before set_subqueryscan_references(),
to determine the triviality of a SubqueryScan that is a child of an
Append plan node, which is done before doing finalize_plan() on the
SubqueryScan (if necessary) and set_plan_references() on the subplan,
unlike when called from set_subqueryscan_references(). The reason why
this is safe wouldn't be that obvious, so add comments explaining this.
Follow-up for commit c2bb02bc2.
Reviewed by Zhihong Yu.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPmGK17%2BGiJBthC6va7%2B9n6t75e-M1N0U18YB2G1B%2BE5OdrNTA%40mail.gmail.com
9d9c02ccd added code to allow the executor to take shortcuts when quals
on monotonic window functions guaranteed that once the qual became false
it could never become true again. When possible, baserestrictinfo quals
are converted to become these quals, which we call run conditions.
Unfortunately, in 9d9c02ccd, I forgot to update
remove_unused_subquery_outputs to teach it about these run conditions.
This could cause a WindowFunc column which was unused in the target list
but referenced by an upper-level WHERE clause to be removed from the
subquery when the qual in the WHERE clause was converted into a window run
condition. Because of this, the entire WindowClause would be removed from
the query resulting in additional rows making it into the resultset when
they should have been filtered out by the WHERE clause.
Here we fix this by recording which target list items in the subquery have
run conditions. That gets passed along to remove_unused_subquery_outputs
to tell it not to remove these items from the target list.
Bug: #17495
Reported-by: Jeremy Evans
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17495-7ffe2fa0b261b9fa@postgresql.org
Several places in the planner tried to clamp a double value to fit
in a "long" by doing
(long) Min(x, (double) LONG_MAX);
This is subtly incorrect, because it casts LONG_MAX to double and
potentially back again. If long is 64 bits then the double value
is inexact, and the platform might round it up to LONG_MAX+1
resulting in an overflow and an undesirably negative output.
While it's not hard to rewrite the expression into a safe form,
let's put it into a common function to reduce the risk of someone
doing it wrong in future.
In principle this is a bug fix, but since the problem could only
manifest with group count estimates exceeding 2^63, it seems unlikely
that anyone has actually hit this or will do so anytime soon. We're
fixing it mainly to satisfy fuzzer-type tools. That being the case,
a HEAD-only fix seems sufficient.
Andrey Lepikhov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ebbc2efb-7ef9-bf2f-1ada-d6ec48f70e58@postgrespro.ru
In order to estimate the cache hit ratio of a Memoize node, one of the
inputs we require is the estimated number of times the Memoize node will
be rescanned. The higher this number, the large the cache hit ratio is
likely to become. Unfortunately, the value being passed as the number of
"calls" to the Memoize was incorrectly using the Nested Loop's
outer_path->parent->rows instead of outer_path->rows. This failed to
account for the fact that the outer_path might be parameterized by some
upper-level Nested Loop.
This problem could lead to Memoize plans appearing more favorable than
they might actually be. It could also lead to extended executor startup
times when work_mem values were large due to the planner setting overly
large MemoizePath->est_entries resulting in the Memoize hash table being
initially made much larger than might be required.
Fix this simply by passing outer_path->rows rather than
outer_path->parent->rows. Also, adjust the expected regression test
output for a plan change.
Reported-by: Pavel Stehule
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRAMp%3DQsMi6sPQJ4W3hczoFJRvyXHJV3AZAZaMyTVM312Q%40mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was introduced
This follows in the footsteps of commit 2591ee8ec by removing one more
ill-advised shortcut from planning of GroupingFuncs. It's true that
we don't intend to execute the argument expression(s) at runtime, but
we still have to process any Vars appearing within them, or we risk
failure at setrefs.c time (or more fundamentally, in EXPLAIN trying
to print such an expression). Vars in upper plan nodes have to have
referents in the next plan level, whether we ever execute 'em or not.
Per bug #17479 from Michael J. Sullivan. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17479-6260deceaf0ad304@postgresql.org
SubqueryScan was always getting labeled with a rowcount estimate
appropriate for non-parallel cases. However, nodes that are
underneath a Gather should be treated as processing only one
worker's share of the rows, whether the particular node is explicitly
parallel-aware or not. Most non-scan-level node types get this
right automatically because they base their rowcount estimate on
that of their input sub-Path(s). But SubqueryScan didn't do that,
instead using the whole-relation rowcount estimate as if it were
a non-parallel-aware scan node. If there is a parallel-aware node
below the SubqueryScan, this is wrong, and it results in inflating
the cost estimates for nodes above the SubqueryScan, which can cause
us to not choose a parallel plan, or choose a silly one --- as indeed
is visible in the one regression test whose results change with this
patch. (Although that plan tree appears to contain no SubqueryScans,
there were some in it before setrefs.c deleted them.)
To fix, use path->subpath->rows not baserel->tuples as the number
of input tuples we'll process. This requires estimating the quals'
selectivity afresh, which is slightly annoying; but it shouldn't
really add much cost thanks to the caching done in RestrictInfo.
This is pretty clearly a bug fix, but I'll refrain from back-patching
as people might not appreciate plan choices changing in stable branches.
The fact that it took us this long to identify the bug suggests that
it's not a major problem.
Per report from bucoo, though this is not his proposed patch.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/202204121457159307248@sohu.com
mark_async_capable_plan(), which is called from create_append_plan() to
determine whether subplans are async-capable, failed to take into
account that the given subplan created from a given subpath might
include a gating Result node if the subpath is a SubqueryScanPath or
ForeignPath, causing a segmentation fault there when the subplan created
from a SubqueryScanPath includes the Result node, or causing
ExecAsyncRequest() to throw an error about an unrecognized node type
when the subplan created from a ForeignPath includes the Result node,
because in the latter case the Result node was unintentionally
considered as async-capable, but we don't currently support executing
Result nodes asynchronously. Fix by modifying mark_async_capable_plan()
to disable asynchronous execution in such cases. Also, adjust code in
the ProjectionPath case in mark_async_capable_plan(), for consistency
with other cases, and adjust/improve comments there.
is_async_capable_path() added in commit 27e1f1456, which was rewritten
to mark_async_capable_plan() in a later commit, has the same issue,
causing the error at execution mentioned above, so back-patch to v14
where the aforesaid commit went in.
Per report from Justin Pryzby.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Zhihong Yu and Justin Pryzby.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220408124338.GK24419%40telsasoft.com
inline_cte() expected to find exactly as many references to the
target CTE as its cterefcount indicates. While that should be
accurate for the tree as emitted by the parser, there are some
optimizations that occur upstream of here that could falsify it,
notably removal of unused subquery output expressions.
Trying to make the accounting 100% accurate seems expensive and
doomed to future breakage. It's not really worth it, because
all this code is protecting is downstream assumptions that every
referenced CTE has a plan. Let's convert those assertions to
regular test-and-elog just in case there's some actual problem,
and then drop the failing assertion.
Per report from Tomas Vondra (thanks also to Richard Guo for
analysis). Back-patch to v12 where the faulty code came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/29196a1e-ed47-c7ca-9be2-b1c636816183@enterprisedb.com
