If a Parallel Bitmap Heap scan's chain of leftmost descendents
includes a BitmapOr whose first child is a BitmapAnd, the prior coding
would mistakenly create a non-shared TIDBitmap and then try to perform
shared iteration.
Report by Tomas Vondra. Patch by Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/50e89684-8ad9-dead-8767-c9545bafd3b6@2ndquadrant.com
If the operator is a strict btree equality operator, and X isn't volatile,
then the clause must yield true for any non-null value of X, or null if X
is null. At top level of a WHERE clause, we can ignore the distinction
between false and null results, so it's valid to simplify the clause to
"X IS NOT NULL". This is a useful improvement mainly because we'll get
a far better selectivity estimate in most cases.
Because such cases seldom arise in well-written queries, it is unappetizing
to expend a lot of planner cycles looking for them ... but it turns out
that there's a place we can shoehorn this in practically for free, because
equivclass.c already has to detect and reject candidate equivalences of the
form X = X. That doesn't catch every place that it would be valid to
simplify to X IS NOT NULL, but it catches the typical case. Working harder
doesn't seem justified.
Patch by me, reviewed by Petr Jelinek
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMjNa7cC4X9YR-vAJS-jSYCajhRDvJQnN7m2sLH1wLh-_Z2bsw@mail.gmail.com
Instead of joining two partitioned tables in their entirety we can, if
it is an equi-join on the partition keys, join the matching partitions
individually. This involves teaching the planner about "other join"
rels, which are related to regular join rels in the same way that
other member rels are related to baserels. This can use significantly
more CPU time and memory than regular join planning, because there may
now be a set of "other" rels not only for every base relation but also
for every join relation. In most practical cases, this probably
shouldn't be a problem, because (1) it's probably unusual to join many
tables each with many partitions using the partition keys for all
joins and (2) if you do that scenario then you probably have a big
enough machine to handle the increased memory cost of planning and (3)
the resulting plan is highly likely to be better, so what you spend in
planning you'll make up on the execution side. All the same, for now,
turn this feature off by default.
Currently, we can only perform joins between two tables whose
partitioning schemes are absolutely identical. It would be nice to
cope with other scenarios, such as extra partitions on one side or the
other with no match on the other side, but that will have to wait for
a future patch.
Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed and tested by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Amit
Langote, Rafia Sabih, Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, Antonin Houska, Amit
Khandekar, and by me. A few final adjustments by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=EaDTSA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRcitjfrULr5jfuKWRPsGUX0LQ0k8-yG0Qw2+1LBGNpMdw@mail.gmail.com
Haribabu Kommi, reviewed by Dilip Kumar and Rafia Sabih. Various
cosmetic changes by me to explain why this appears to be safe but
allowing inserts in parallel mode in general wouldn't be. Also, I
removed the REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW case from Haribabu's patch,
since I'm not convinced that case is OK, and hacked on the
documentation somewhat.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJrrPGdo5bak6qnPWe8Kpi8g_jfQEs-G4SYmG9y+OFaw2-dPvA@mail.gmail.com
Allowing arrays with a domain type as their element type was left un-done
in the original domain patch, but not for any very good reason. This
omission leads to such surprising results as array_agg() not working on
a domain column, because the parser can't identify a suitable output type
for the polymorphic aggregate.
In order to fix this, first clean up the APIs of coerce_to_domain() and
some internal functions in parse_coerce.c so that we consistently pass
around a CoercionContext along with CoercionForm. Previously, we sometimes
passed an "isExplicit" boolean flag instead, which is strictly less
information; and coerce_to_domain() didn't even get that, but instead had
to reverse-engineer isExplicit from CoercionForm. That's contrary to the
documentation in primnodes.h that says that CoercionForm only affects
display and not semantics. I don't think this change fixes any live bugs,
but it makes things more consistent. The main reason for doing it though
is that now build_coercion_expression() receives ccontext, which it needs
in order to be able to recursively invoke coerce_to_target_type().
Next, reimplement ArrayCoerceExpr so that the node does not directly know
any details of what has to be done to the individual array elements while
performing the array coercion. Instead, the per-element processing is
represented by a sub-expression whose input is a source array element and
whose output is a target array element. This simplifies life in
parse_coerce.c, because it can build that sub-expression by a recursive
invocation of coerce_to_target_type(). The executor now handles the
per-element processing as a compiled expression instead of hard-wired code.
The main advantage of this is that we can use a single ArrayCoerceExpr to
handle as many as three successive steps per element: base type conversion,
typmod coercion, and domain constraint checking. The old code used two
stacked ArrayCoerceExprs to handle type + typmod coercion, which was pretty
inefficient, and adding yet another array deconstruction to do domain
constraint checking seemed very unappetizing.
In the case where we just need a single, very simple coercion function,
doing this straightforwardly leads to a noticeable increase in the
per-array-element runtime cost. Hence, add an additional shortcut evalfunc
in execExprInterp.c that skips unnecessary overhead for that specific form
of expression. The runtime speed of simple cases is within 1% or so of
where it was before, while cases that previously required two levels of
array processing are significantly faster.
Finally, create an implicit array type for every domain type, as we do for
base types, enums, etc. Everything except the array-coercion case seems
to just work without further effort.
Tom Lane, reviewed by Andrew Dunstan
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9852.1499791473@sss.pgh.pa.us
These variables are only ever written to in assertion-enabled builds,
and the latest Microsoft compilers complain about such variables in
non-assertion-enabled builds.
Apparently they don't worry so much about variables that are written to
but not read from, so most of our PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY variables
don't cause the problem.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7800.1505950322@sss.pgh.pa.us
This is not used for anything yet, but it is necessary infrastructure
for partition-wise join and for partition pruning without constraint
exclusion.
Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed by Amit Langote and with quite a few changes,
mostly cosmetic, by me. Additional review and testing of this patch
series by Antonin Houska, Amit Khandekar, Rafia Sabih, Rajkumar
Raghuwanshi, Thomas Munro, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRfneFG3H+F6BaiXemMrKF+FY-POpx3Ocy+RiH3yBmXSNw@mail.gmail.com
Flattening the partitioning hierarchy at this stage makes various
desirable optimizations difficult. The original use case for this
patch was partition-wise join, which wants to match up the partitions
in one partitioning hierarchy with those in another such hierarchy.
However, it now seems that it will also be useful in making partition
pruning work using the PartitionDesc rather than constraint exclusion,
because with a flattened expansion, we have no easy way to figure out
which PartitionDescs apply to which leaf tables in a multi-level
partition hierarchy.
As it turns out, we end up creating both rte->inh and !rte->inh RTEs
for each intermediate partitioned table, just as we previously did for
the root table. This seems unnecessary since the partitioned tables
have no storage and are not scanned. We might want to go back and
rejigger things so that no partitioned tables (including the parent)
need !rte->inh RTEs, but that seems to require some adjustments not
related to the core purpose of this patch.
Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed by me and by Amit Langote. Some final
adjustments by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRd=1venqLL7oGU=C1dEkuvk2DJgvF+7uKbnPHaum1mvHQ@mail.gmail.com
With this change, the order of leaf partitions as returned by
RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo should now be the same as the
order used by expand_inherited_rtentry. This will make it simpler
for future patches to match up the partition dispatch information
with the planner data structures. The new code is also, in my
opinion anyway, simpler and easier to understand.
Amit Langote, reviewed by Amit Khandekar. I also reviewed and
made a few cosmetic revisions.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/d98d4761-5071-1762-501e-0e15047c714b@lab.ntt.co.jp
Historically, the selectivity functions have simply not distinguished
< from <=, or > from >=, arguing that the fraction of the population that
satisfies the "=" aspect can be considered to be vanishingly small, if the
comparison value isn't any of the most-common-values for the variable.
(If it is, the code path that executes the operator against each MCV will
take care of things properly.) But that isn't really true unless we're
dealing with a continuum of variable values, and in practice we seldom are.
If "x = const" would estimate a nonzero number of rows for a given const
value, then it follows that we ought to estimate different numbers of rows
for "x < const" and "x <= const", even if the const is not one of the MCVs.
Handling this more honestly makes a significant difference in edge cases,
such as the estimate for a tight range (x BETWEEN y AND z where y and z
are close together).
Hence, split scalarltsel into scalarltsel/scalarlesel, and similarly
split scalargtsel into scalargtsel/scalargesel. Adjust <= and >=
operator definitions to reference the new selectivity functions.
Improve the core ineq_histogram_selectivity() function to make a
correction for equality. (Along the way, I learned quite a bit about
exactly why that function gives good answers, which I tried to memorialize
in improved comments.)
The corresponding join selectivity functions were, and remain, just stubs.
But I chose to split them similarly, to avoid confusion and to prevent the
need for doing this exercise again if someone ever makes them less stubby.
In passing, change ineq_histogram_selectivity's clamp for extreme
probability estimates so that it varies depending on the histogram
size, instead of being hardwired at 0.0001. With the default histogram
size of 100 entries, you still get the old clamp value, but bigger
histograms should allow us to put more faith in edge values.
Tom Lane, reviewed by Aleksander Alekseev and Kuntal Ghosh
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/12232.1499140410@sss.pgh.pa.us
The NAMEDTUPLESTORE patch piggybacked on the infrastructure for
TABLEFUNC/VALUES/CTE RTEs, none of which can ever have dropped columns,
so the possibility was ignored most places. Fix that, including adding a
specification to parsenodes.h about what it's supposed to look like.
In passing, clean up assorted comments that hadn't been maintained
properly by said patch.
Per bug #14799 from Philippe Beaudoin. Back-patch to v10.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170906120005.25630.84360@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Previously, we expanded the inheritance hierarchy in the order in
which find_all_inheritors had locked the tables, but that turns out
to block quite a bit of useful optimization. For example, a
partition-wise join can't count on two tables with matching bounds
to get expanded in the same order.
Where possible, this change results in expanding partitioned tables in
*bound* order. Bound order isn't well-defined for a list-partitioned
table with a null-accepting partition or for a list-partitioned table
where the bounds for a single partition are interleaved with other
partitions. However, when expansion in bound order is possible, it
opens up further opportunities for optimization, such as
strength-reducing MergeAppend to Append when the expansion order
matches the desired sort order.
Patch by me, with cosmetic revisions by Ashutosh Bapat.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZrKj7kEzcMSum3aXV4eyvvbh9WD=c6m=002WMheDyE3A@mail.gmail.com
The ExecReScan machinery contains various optimizations for postponing
or skipping rescans of plan subtrees; for example a HashAgg node may
conclude that it can re-use the table it built before, instead of
re-reading its input subtree. But that is wrong if the input contains
a parallel-aware table scan node, since the portion of the table scanned
by the leader process is likely to vary from one rescan to the next.
This explains the timing-dependent buildfarm failures we saw after
commit a2b70c89c.
The established mechanism for showing that a plan node's output is
potentially variable is to mark it as depending on some runtime Param.
Hence, to fix this, invent a dummy Param (one that has a PARAM_EXEC
parameter number, but carries no actual value) associated with each Gather
or GatherMerge node, mark parallel-aware nodes below that node as dependent
on that Param, and arrange for ExecReScanGather[Merge] to flag that Param
as changed whenever the Gather[Merge] node is rescanned.
This solution breaks an undocumented assumption made by the parallel
executor logic, namely that all rescans of nodes below a Gather[Merge]
will happen synchronously during the ReScan of the top node itself.
But that's fundamentally contrary to the design of the ExecReScan code,
and so was doomed to fail someday anyway (even if you want to argue
that the bug being fixed here wasn't a failure of that assumption).
A follow-on patch will address that issue. In the meantime, the worst
that's expected to happen is that given very bad timing luck, the leader
might have to do all the work during a rescan, because workers think
they have nothing to do, if they are able to start up before the eventual
ReScan of the leader's parallel-aware table scan node has reset the
shared scan state.
Although this problem exists in 9.6, there does not seem to be any way
for it to manifest there. Without GatherMerge, it seems that a plan tree
that has a rescan-short-circuiting node below Gather will always also
have one above it that will short-circuit in the same cases, preventing
the Gather from being rescanned. Hence we won't take the risk of
back-patching this change into 9.6. But v10 needs it.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
This is a mechanical change in preparation for a later commit that
will change the layout of TupleDesc. Introducing a macro to abstract
the details of where attributes are stored will allow us to change
that in separate step and revise it in future.
Author: Thomas Munro, editorialized by Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
The executor is capable of splitting buckets during a hash join if
too much memory is being used by a small number of buckets. However,
this only helps if a bucket's population is actually divisible; if
all the hash keys are alike, the tuples still end up in the same
new bucket. This can result in an OOM failure if there are enough
inner keys with identical hash values. The planner's cost estimates
will bias it against choosing a hash join in such situations, but not
by so much that it will never do so. To mitigate the OOM hazard,
explicitly estimate the hash bucket space needed by just the inner
side's most common value, and if that would exceed work_mem then
add disable_cost to the hash cost estimate.
This approach doesn't account for the possibility that two or more
common values would share the same hash value. On the other hand,
work_mem is normally a fairly conservative bound, so that eating
two or more times that much space is probably not going to kill us.
If we have no stats about the inner side, ignore this consideration.
There was some discussion of making a conservative assumption, but that
would effectively result in disabling hash join whenever we lack stats,
which seems like an overreaction given how seldom the problem manifests
in the field.
Per a complaint from David Hinkle. Although this could be viewed
as a bug fix, the lack of similar complaints weighs against back-
patching; indeed we waited for v11 because it seemed already rather
late in the v10 cycle to be making plan choice changes like this one.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/32013.1487271761@sss.pgh.pa.us
Instead of duplicating the logic to search for a matching
ParamPathInfo in multiple places, factor it out into a separate
function.
Pass only the relevant bits of the PartitionKey to
partition_bounds_equal instead of the whole thing, because
partition-wise join will want to call this without having a
PartitionKey available.
Adjust allow_star_schema_join and calc_nestloop_required_outer
to take relevant Relids rather than the entire Path, because
partition-wise join will want to call it with the top-parent
relids to determine whether a child join is allowable.
Ashutosh Bapat. Review and testing of the larger patch set of which
this is a part by Amit Langote, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Rafia Sabih,
Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobQK80vtXjAsPZWWXd7c8u13G86gmuLupN+uUJjA+i4nA@mail.gmail.com
plpgsql wants to recognize expressions that it can execute directly
via ExecEvalExpr() instead of going through the full SPI machinery.
Originally the test for this consisted of recursively groveling through
the post-planning expression tree to see if it contained only nodes that
plpgsql recognized as safe. That was a major maintenance headache, since
it required updating plpgsql every time we added any kind of expression
node. It was also kind of expensive, so over time we added various
pre-planning checks to try to short-circuit having to do that.
Robert Haas pointed out that as of the SRF-processing changes in v10,
particularly the addition of Query.hasTargetSRFs, there really isn't
any reason to make the recursive scan at all: the initial checks cover
everything we really care about. We do have to make sure that those
checks agree with what inline_function() considers, so that inlining
of a function that formerly wasn't inlined can't cause an expression
considered simple to become non-simple.
Hence, delete the recursive function exec_simple_check_node(), and tweak
those other tests to more exactly agree with inline_function(). Adjust
some comments and function naming to match.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZGZpwdEV2FQWaVxA_qZXsQE1DAS5Fu8fwxXDNvfndiUQ@mail.gmail.com
Currently, child relations are always base relations, so when we
translate parent relids to child relids, we only need to translate
a singler relid. However, the proposed partition-wise join feature
will create child joins, which will mean we need to translate a set
of parent relids to the corresponding child relids. This is
preliminary refactoring to make that possible.
Ashutosh Bapat. Review and testing of the larger patch set of which
this is a part by Amit Langote, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Rafia Sabih,
Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, and me. Some adjustments, mostly
cosmetic, by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobQK80vtXjAsPZWWXd7c8u13G86gmuLupN+uUJjA+i4nA@mail.gmail.com
Before commit d3cc37f1d8, an inheritance parent
whose only children were temp tables of other sessions would end up
as a simple scan of the parent; but with that commit, we end up with
an Append node, per a report from Ashutosh Bapat. Tweak the logic
so that we go back to the old way, and update the function header
comment for partitioning while we're at it.
Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed by Amit Langote and adjusted by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpReWJr1yTkHU=OqiMBmcYCMoSW3VPR39RBuQ_ovwDFBT5Q@mail.gmail.com
If the user modifies a view that has CHECK OPTIONs and this gets
translated into a modification to an underlying relation which happens
to be a foreign table, the check options should be enforced. In the
normal code path, that was happening properly, but it was not working
properly for "direct" modification because the whole operation gets
pushed to the remote side in that case and we never have an option to
enforce the constraint against individual tuples. Fix by disabling
direct modification when there is a need to enforce CHECK OPTIONs.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Kyotaro Horiguchi and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/f8a48f54-6f02-9c8a-5250-9791603171ee@lab.ntt.co.jp
Add error checks in some places that were calling get_opfamily_member
or get_opfamily_proc and just assuming that the call could never fail.
Also, standardize the wording for such errors in some other places.
None of these errors are expected in normal use, hence they're just
elog not ereport. But they may be handy for diagnosing omissions in
custom opclasses.
Rushabh Lathia found the oversight in RelationBuildPartitionKey();
I found the others by grepping for all callers of these functions.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGPqQf2R9Nk8htpv0FFi+FP776EwMyGuORpc9zYkZKC8sFQE3g@mail.gmail.com
Add missing infrastructure for this node type, notably in ruleutils.c where
its lack could demonstrably cause EXPLAIN to fail. Add outfuncs/readfuncs
support. (outfuncs support is useful today for debugging purposes. The
readfuncs support may never be needed, since at present it would only
matter for parallel query and NextValueExpr should never appear in a
parallelizable query; but it seems like a bad idea to have a primnode type
that isn't fully supported here.) Teach planner infrastructure that
NextValueExpr is a volatile, parallel-unsafe, non-leaky expression node
with cost cpu_operator_cost. Given its limited scope of usage, there
*might* be no live bug today from the lack of that knowledge, but it's
certainly going to bite us on the rear someday. Teach pg_stat_statements
about the new node type, too.
While at it, also teach cost_qual_eval() that MinMaxExpr, SQLValueFunction,
XmlExpr, and CoerceToDomain should be charged as cpu_operator_cost.
Failing to do this for SQLValueFunction was an oversight in my commit
0bb51aa96. The others are longer-standing oversights, but no time like the
present to fix them. (In principle, CoerceToDomain could have cost much
higher than this, but it doesn't presently seem worth trying to examine the
domain's constraints here.)
Modify execExprInterp.c to execute NextValueExpr as an out-of-line
function; it seems quite unlikely to me that it's worth insisting that
it be inlined in all expression eval methods. Besides, providing the
out-of-line function doesn't stop anyone from inlining if they want to.
Adjust some places where NextValueExpr support had been inserted with the
aid of a dartboard rather than keeping it in the same order as elsewhere.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/23862.1499981661@sss.pgh.pa.us
Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they
flow past the right margin.
By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are
within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding
left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the
continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin,
then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin,
if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of
the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations
unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column
limit.
This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers.
Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized
lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
The new indent version includes numerous fixes thanks to Piotr Stefaniak.
The main changes visible in this commit are:
* Nicer formatting of function-pointer declarations.
* No longer unexpectedly removes spaces in expressions using casts,
sizeof, or offsetof.
* No longer wants to add a space in "struct structname *varname", as
well as some similar cases for const- or volatile-qualified pointers.
* Declarations using PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY are formatted more nicely.
* Fixes bug where comments following declarations were sometimes placed
with no space separating them from the code.
* Fixes some odd decisions for comments following case labels.
* Fixes some cases where comments following code were indented to less
than the expected column 33.
On the less good side, it now tends to put more whitespace around typedef
names that are not listed in typedefs.list. This might encourage us to
put more effort into typedef name collection; it's not really a bug in
indent itself.
There are more changes coming after this round, having to do with comment
indentation and alignment of lines appearing within parentheses. I wanted
to limit the size of the diffs to something that could be reviewed without
one's eyes completely glazing over, so it seemed better to split up the
changes as much as practical.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
David Rowley found that the "use the smallest per-column selectivity"
heuristic applied in some cases by get_foreign_key_join_selectivity()
was badly off if the FK columns are independent, producing estimates
much worse than we got before that code was added in 9.6.
One case where that heuristic was used was for LEFT and FULL outer joins
with the referenced rel on the outside of the join. But we should not
really need to special-case those here. eqjoinsel() never has had such a
special case; the correction is applied by calc_joinrel_size_estimate()
instead. Let's just estimate such cases like inner joins and rely on that
later adjustment. (I think there was something of a thinko here, in that
the comments seem to be thinking about the selectivity as defined for
semi/anti joins; but that shouldn't apply to left/full joins.) Add a
regression test exercising such a case to show that this is sane in
at least some cases.
The other case where we used that heuristic was for SEMI/ANTI outer joins,
either if the referenced rel was on the outside, or if it was on the inside
but was part of a join within the RHS. In either case, the FK doesn't give
us a lot of traction towards estimating the selectivity. To ensure that
we don't have regressions from what happened before 9.6, let's punt by
ignoring the FK in such cases and applying the traditional selectivity
calculation. (We might be able to improve on that later, but for now
I just want to be sure it's not worse than 9.5.)
Report and patch by David Rowley, simplified a bit by me. Back-patch
to 9.6 where this code was added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f8NO8oCDcxrteohG6O72uU1saEVT9qX=R8pENr5QWerXw@mail.gmail.com
In a CHECK clause, a null result means true, whereas in a WHERE clause
it means false. predtest.c provided different functions depending on
which set of semantics applied to the predicate being proved, but had
no option to control what a null meant in the clauses provided as
axioms. Add one.
Use that in the partitioning code when figuring out whether the
validation scan on a new partition can be skipped. Rip out the
old logic that attempted (not very successfully) to compensate
for the absence of the necessary support in predtest.c.
Ashutosh Bapat and Robert Haas, reviewed by Amit Langote and
incorporating feedback from Tom Lane.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpReT_kq_uwU_B8aWDxR7jNGE=P0iELycdq5oupi=xSQTOw@mail.gmail.com
I'd always assumed that backend/optimizer/geqo/'s remarkably poor
showing on code coverage metrics was because we weren't exercising
it much in the regression tests. But it turns out that a good chunk
of the problem is that there's a bunch of code that is physically
unreachable (because the calls to it are #ifdef'd out in geqo_main.c)
but is being built anyway. Making the called code have #if guards
similar to the calling code saves a couple of kilobytes of executable
size and should make the coverage numbers more reflective of reality.
It's arguable that we should just delete all the unused recombination
mechanisms altogether, but I didn't feel a need to go that far today.
When costing a nestloop with stop-at-first-inner-match semantics, and a
non-indexscan inner path, final_cost_nestloop() wants to charge the full
scan cost of the inner rel at least once, with additional scans charged
at inner_rescan_run_cost which might be less. However the logic for
doing this effectively assumed that outer_matched_rows is at least 1.
If it's zero, which is not unlikely for a small outer rel, we ended up
charging inner_run_cost plus N times inner_rescan_run_cost, as much as
double the correct charge for an outer rel with only one row that
we're betting won't be matched. (Unless the inner rel is materialized,
in which case it has very small inner_rescan_run_cost and the cost
is not so far off what it should have been.)
The upshot of this was that the planner had a tendency to select plans
that failed to make effective use of the stop-at-first-inner-match
semantics, and that might have Materialize nodes in them even when the
predicted number of executions of the Materialize subplan was only 1.
This was not so obvious before commit 9c7f5229a, because the case only
arose in connection with semi/anti joins where there's not freedom to
reverse the join order. But with the addition of unique-inner joins,
it could result in some fairly bad planning choices, as reported by
Teodor Sigaev. Indeed, some of the test cases added by that commit
have plans that look dubious on closer inspection, and are changed
by this patch.
Fix the logic to ensure that we don't charge for too many inner scans.
I chose to adjust it so that the full-freight scan cost is associated
with an unmatched outer row if possible, not a matched one, since that
seems like a better model of what would happen at runtime.
This is a longstanding bug, but given the lesser impact in back branches,
and the lack of field complaints, I won't risk a back-patch.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f-LzkUsFxdJ_-Luy38orQ+AdEXM5o+vANR+-pHAWPSecg@mail.gmail.com
Otherwise, set_plan_refs() can get applied to the same list
multiple times through different references, leading to chaos.
Amit Langote, Dilip Kumar, and Robert Haas, reviewed by Ashutosh
Bapat. Original report by Sveinn Sveinsson.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20170517141151.1435.79890@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Consistently refer to such an entry as a "statistics object", not just
"statistics" or "extended statistics". Previously we had a mismash of
terms, accompanied by utter confusion as to whether the term was
singular or plural. That's not only grating (at least to the ear of
a native English speaker) but could be outright misleading, eg in error
messages that seemed to be referring to multiple objects where only one
could be meant.
This commit fixes the code and a lot of comments (though I may have
missed a few). I also renamed two new SQL functions,
pg_get_statisticsextdef -> pg_get_statisticsobjdef
pg_statistic_ext_is_visible -> pg_statistics_obj_is_visible
to conform better with this terminology.
I have not touched the SGML docs other than fixing those function
names; the docs certainly need work but it seems like a separable task.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22676.1494557205@sss.pgh.pa.us
If the inner relation can be proven unique, that is it can have no more
than one matching row for any row of the outer query, then we might as
well implement the semijoin as a plain inner join, allowing substantially
more freedom to the planner. This is a form of outer join strength
reduction, but it can't be implemented in reduce_outer_joins() because
we don't have enough info about the individual relations at that stage.
Instead do it much like remove_useless_joins(): once we've built base
relations, we can make another pass over the SpecialJoinInfo list and
get rid of any entries representing reducible semijoins.
This is essentially a followon to the inner-unique patch (commit 9c7f5229a)
and makes use of the proof machinery that that patch created. We need only
minor refactoring of innerrel_is_unique's API to support this usage.
Per performance complaint from Teodor Sigaev.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f994fc98-389f-4a46-d1bc-c42e05cb43ed@sigaev.ru
The inner-unique patch (commit 9c7f5229a) supposed that if we're
considering a JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER join path, we can always set inner_unique
for the join, because the inner path produced by create_unique_path should
be unique relative to the outer relation. However, that's true only if
we're considering joining to the whole outer relation --- otherwise we may
be applying only some of the join quals, and so the inner path might be
non-unique from the perspective of this join. Adjust the test to only
believe that we can set inner_unique if we have the whole semijoin LHS on
the outer side.
There is more that can be done in this area, but this commit is only
intended to provide the minimal fix needed to get correct plans.
Per report from Teodor Sigaev. Thanks to David Rowley for preliminary
investigation.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f994fc98-389f-4a46-d1bc-c42e05cb43ed@sigaev.ru
Even though no actual tuples are ever inserted into a partitioned
table (the actual tuples are in the partitions, not the partitioned
table itself), we still need to have a ResultRelInfo for the
partitioned table, or per-statement triggers won't get fired.
Amit Langote, per a report from Rajkumar Raghuwanshi. Reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6%3DwYospCRY2J4XEFuVy0L41S%3Dfic7rmkbsU-GXhhSbmBg%40mail.gmail.com
is_parallel_safe() supposed that the only relevant property of a SubPlan
was the parallel safety of the referenced subplan tree. This is wrong:
the testexpr or args subtrees might contain parallel-unsafe stuff, as
demonstrated by the test case added here. However, just recursing into the
subtrees fails in a different way: we'll typically find PARAM_EXEC Params
representing the subplan's output columns in the testexpr. The previous
coding supposed that any Param must be treated as parallel-restricted, so
that a naive attempt at fixing this disabled parallel pushdown of SubPlans
altogether. We must instead determine, for any visited Param, whether it
is one that would be computed by a surrounding SubPlan node; if so, it's
safe to push down along with the SubPlan node.
We might later be able to extend this logic to cope with Params used for
correlated subplans and other cases; but that's a task for v11 or beyond.
Tom Lane and Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7064.1492022469@sss.pgh.pa.us
