If a GENERATED column is declared to have a domain data type where
the domain's constraints disallow null values, INSERT commands failed
because we built a targetlist that included coercing a null constant
to the domain's type. The failure occurred even when the generated
value would have been perfectly OK. This is adjacent to the issues
fixed in 0da39aa76, but we didn't notice for lack of testing a domain
with such a constraint.
We aren't going to use the result of the targetlist entry for the
generated column --- ExecComputeStoredGenerated will overwrite it.
So it's not really necessary that it have the exact datatype of
the generated column. This patch fixes the problem by changing
the targetlist entry to be a null Const of the domain's base type,
which should be sufficiently legal. (We do have to tweak
ExecCheckPlanOutput to accept the situation, though.)
This has been broken since we implemented generated columns.
However, this patch only applies easily as far back as v14, partly
because I (tgl) only carried 0da39aa76 back that far, but mostly
because v14 significantly refactored the handling of INSERT/UPDATE
targetlists. Given the lack of field complaints and the short
remaining support lifetime of v13, I judge the cost-benefit ratio
not good for devising a version that would work in v13.
Reported-by: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Author: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CACJufxG59tip2+9h=rEv-ykOFjt0cbsPVchhi0RTij8bABBA0Q@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 14
ExecInitPartitionInfo() duplicates much of the logic in
ExecInitMerge(), except that it failed to handle DO NOTHING
actions. This would cause an "unknown action in MERGE WHEN clause"
error if a MERGE with any DO NOTHING actions attempted to insert into
a partition not already initialised by ExecInitModifyTable().
Bug: #18871
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Author: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18871-b44e3c96de3bd2e8%40postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 15
Commit cbc127917e introduced tracking of unpruned relids to avoid
processing pruned relations, and changed ExecInitModifyTable() to
initialize only unpruned result relations. As a result, MERGE
statements that prune all target partitions can now lead to crashes
or incorrect behavior during execution.
The crash occurs because some executor code paths rely on
ModifyTableState.resultRelInfo[0] being present and initialized,
even when no result relations remain after pruning. For example,
ExecMerge() and ExecMergeNotMatched() use the first resultRelInfo
to determine the appropriate action. Similarly,
ExecInitPartitionInfo() assumes that at least one result relation
exists.
To preserve these assumptions, ExecInitModifyTable() now includes the
first result relation in the initialized result relation list if all
result relations for that ModifyTable were pruned. To enable that,
ExecDoInitialPruning() ensures the first relation is locked if it was
pruned and locking is necessary.
To support this exception to the pruning logic, PlannedStmt now
includes a list of RT indexes identifying the first result relation
of each ModifyTable node in the plan. This allows
ExecDoInitialPruning() to check whether each such relation was
pruned and, if so, lock it if necessary.
Bug: #18830
Reported-by: Robins Tharakan <tharakan@gmail.com>
Diagnozed-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Diagnozed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18830-1f31ea1dc930d444%40postgresql.org
ExecInitModifyTable() forgot to trim MERGE-related lists to exclude
entries for result relations pruned during initial pruning, so fix
that.
While at it, make the function's use of the pruned resultRelations
list, rather than ModifyTable.resultRelations, more consistent.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> (via sqlsmith)
Reviewed-by: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e72c94d9-e5f9-4753-9bc1-69d72bd54b8a@gmail.com
This adds a new variant of generated columns that are computed on read
(like a view, unlike the existing stored generated columns, which are
computed on write, like a materialized view).
The syntax for the column definition is
... GENERATED ALWAYS AS (...) VIRTUAL
and VIRTUAL is also optional. VIRTUAL is the default rather than
STORED to match various other SQL products. (The SQL standard makes
no specification about this, but it also doesn't know about VIRTUAL or
STORED.) (Also, virtual views are the default, rather than
materialized views.)
Virtual generated columns are stored in tuples as null values. (A
very early version of this patch had the ambition to not store them at
all. But so much stuff breaks or gets confused if you have tuples
where a column in the middle is completely missing. This is a
compromise, and it still saves space over being forced to use stored
generated columns. If we ever find a way to improve this, a bit of
pg_upgrade cleverness could allow for upgrades to a newer scheme.)
The capabilities and restrictions of virtual generated columns are
mostly the same as for stored generated columns. In some cases, this
patch keeps virtual generated columns more restricted than they might
technically need to be, to keep the two kinds consistent. Some of
that could maybe be relaxed later after separate careful
considerations.
Some functionality that is currently not supported, but could possibly
be added as incremental features, some easier than others:
- index on or using a virtual column
- hence also no unique constraints on virtual columns
- extended statistics on virtual columns
- foreign-key constraints on virtual columns
- not-null constraints on virtual columns (check constraints are supported)
- ALTER TABLE / DROP EXPRESSION
- virtual column cannot have domain type
- virtual columns are not supported in logical replication
The tests in generated_virtual.sql have been copied over from
generated_stored.sql with the keyword replaced. This way we can make
sure the behavior is mostly aligned, and the differences can be
visible. Some tests for currently not supported features are
currently commented out.
Reviewed-by: Jian He <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/a368248e-69e4-40be-9c07-6c3b5880b0a6@eisentraut.org
This commit introduces changes to track unpruned relations explicitly,
making it possible for top-level plan nodes, such as ModifyTable and
LockRows, to avoid processing partitions pruned during initial
pruning. Scan-level nodes, such as Append and MergeAppend, already
avoid the unnecessary processing by accessing partition pruning
results directly via part_prune_index. In contrast, top-level nodes
cannot access pruning results directly and need to determine which
partitions remain unpruned.
To address this, this commit introduces a new bitmapset field,
es_unpruned_relids, which the executor uses to track the set of
unpruned relations. This field is referenced during plan
initialization to skip initializing certain nodes for pruned
partitions. It is initialized with PlannedStmt.unprunableRelids,
a new field that the planner populates with RT indexes of relations
that cannot be pruned during runtime pruning. These include relations
not subject to partition pruning and those required for execution
regardless of pruning.
PlannedStmt.unprunableRelids is computed during set_plan_refs() by
removing the RT indexes of runtime-prunable relations, identified
from PartitionPruneInfos, from the full set of relation RT indexes.
ExecDoInitialPruning() then updates es_unpruned_relids by adding
partitions that survive initial pruning.
To support this, PartitionedRelPruneInfo and PartitionedRelPruningData
now include a leafpart_rti_map[] array that maps partition indexes to
their corresponding RT indexes. The former is used in set_plan_refs()
when constructing unprunableRelids, while the latter is used in
ExecDoInitialPruning() to convert partition indexes returned by
get_matching_partitions() into RT indexes, which are then added to
es_unpruned_relids.
These changes make it possible for ModifyTable and LockRows nodes to
process only relations that remain unpruned after initial pruning.
ExecInitModifyTable() trims lists, such as resultRelations,
withCheckOptionLists, returningLists, and updateColnosLists, to
consider only unpruned partitions. It also creates ResultRelInfo
structs only for these partitions. Similarly, child RowMarks for
pruned relations are skipped.
By avoiding unnecessary initialization of structures for pruned
partitions, these changes improve the performance of updates and
deletes on partitioned tables during initial runtime pruning.
Due to ExecInitModifyTable() changes as described above, EXPLAIN on a
plan for UPDATE and DELETE that uses runtime initial pruning no longer
lists partitions pruned during initial pruning.
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> (earlier versions)
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFGkMSge6TgC9KQzde0ohpAycLQuV7ooitEEpbKB0O_mg@mail.gmail.com
This allows the RETURNING list of INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/MERGE queries
to explicitly return old and new values by using the special aliases
"old" and "new", which are automatically added to the query (if not
already defined) while parsing its RETURNING list, allowing things
like:
RETURNING old.colname, new.colname, ...
RETURNING old.*, new.*
Additionally, a new syntax is supported, allowing the names "old" and
"new" to be changed to user-supplied alias names, e.g.:
RETURNING WITH (OLD AS o, NEW AS n) o.colname, n.colname, ...
This is useful when the names "old" and "new" are already defined,
such as inside trigger functions, allowing backwards compatibility to
be maintained -- the interpretation of any existing queries that
happen to already refer to relations called "old" or "new", or use
those as aliases for other relations, is not changed.
For an INSERT, old values will generally be NULL, and for a DELETE,
new values will generally be NULL, but that may change for an INSERT
with an ON CONFLICT ... DO UPDATE clause, or if a query rewrite rule
changes the command type. Therefore, we put no restrictions on the use
of old and new in any DML queries.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Jian He and Jeff Davis.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWx0J0-v=Qjc6gXzR=KtsdvAE7Ow=D=mu50AgOe+pvisQ@mail.gmail.com
The new compact_attrs array stores a few select fields from
FormData_pg_attribute in a more compact way, using only 16 bytes per
column instead of the 104 bytes that FormData_pg_attribute uses. Using
CompactAttribute allows performance-critical operations such as tuple
deformation to be performed without looking at the FormData_pg_attribute
element in TupleDesc which means fewer cacheline accesses.
For some workloads, tuple deformation can be the most CPU intensive part
of processing the query. Some testing with 16 columns on a table
where the first column is variable length showed around a 10% increase in
transactions per second for an OLAP type query performing aggregation on
the 16th column. However, in certain cases, the increases were much
higher, up to ~25% on one AMD Zen4 machine.
This also makes pg_attribute.attcacheoff redundant. A follow-on commit
will remove it, thus shrinking the FormData_pg_attribute struct by 4
bytes.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Victor Yegorov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrBztXP3yx=NKNmo3xwFAFhEdyPnvrDg3=M0RhDs+4vYw@mail.gmail.com
The previous commit fixed some ways of losing an inplace update. It
remained possible to lose one when a backend working toward a
heap_update() copied a tuple into memory just before inplace update of
that tuple. In catalogs eligible for inplace update, use LOCKTAG_TUPLE
to govern admission to the steps of copying an old tuple, modifying it,
and issuing heap_update(). This includes MERGE commands. To avoid
changing most of the pg_class DDL, don't require LOCKTAG_TUPLE when
holding a relation lock sufficient to exclude inplace updaters.
Back-patch to v12 (all supported versions). In v13 and v12, "UPDATE
pg_class" or "UPDATE pg_database" can still lose an inplace update. The
v14+ UPDATE fix needs commit 86dc90056dfdbd9d1b891718d2e5614e3e432f35,
and it wasn't worth reimplementing that fix without such infrastructure.
Reviewed by Nitin Motiani and (in earlier versions) Heikki Linnakangas.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20231027214946.79.nmisch@google.com
This patch provides the additional logging information in the following
conflict scenarios while applying changes:
insert_exists: Inserting a row that violates a NOT DEFERRABLE unique constraint.
update_differ: Updating a row that was previously modified by another origin.
update_exists: The updated row value violates a NOT DEFERRABLE unique constraint.
update_missing: The tuple to be updated is missing.
delete_differ: Deleting a row that was previously modified by another origin.
delete_missing: The tuple to be deleted is missing.
For insert_exists and update_exists conflicts, the log can include the origin
and commit timestamp details of the conflicting key with track_commit_timestamp
enabled.
update_differ and delete_differ conflicts can only be detected when
track_commit_timestamp is enabled on the subscriber.
We do not offer additional logging for exclusion constraint violations because
these constraints can specify rules that are more complex than simple equality
checks. Resolving such conflicts won't be straightforward. This area can be
further enhanced if required.
Author: Hou Zhijie
Reviewed-by: Shveta Malik, Amit Kapila, Nisha Moond, Hayato Kuroda, Dilip Kumar
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/OS0PR01MB5716352552DFADB8E9AD1D8994C92@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Such queries don't expand automatically updatable views, and ModifyTable
uses the wholerow attribute unconditionally. The user-visible behavior
is fine, so change to more-specific assertions. Commit
d5f788b41dc2cbdde6e7694c70dda54d829a5ed5 added the wrong assertion.
Back-patch to v17, where commit 5f2e179bd31e5f5803005101eb12a8d7bf8db8f3
introduced MERGE view_name.
Reported by Alexander Lakhin.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e4b40a88-c134-6926-3196-bc4501cb87a2@gmail.com
Most comments concern RELKIND_VIEW. One addresses the ExecUpdate()
"tupleid" parameter. A later commit will rely on these facts, but they
hold already. Back-patch to v12 (all supported versions), the plan for
that commit.
Reviewed (in an earlier version) by Robert Haas.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20240512232923.aa.nmisch@google.com
Previously, the executor did index insert unconditionally after calling
table AM interface methods tuple_insert() and multi_insert(). This commit
introduces the new parameter insert_indexes for these two methods. Setting
'*insert_indexes' to true saves the current logic. Setting it to false
indicates that table AM cares about index inserts itself and doesn't want the
caller to do that.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdurb9ycV8udYqM%3Do0sPS66PJ4RCBM1g-bBpvzUfogY0EA%40mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Pavel Borisov, Matthias van de Meent, Mark Dilger
This allows MERGE commands to include WHEN NOT MATCHED BY SOURCE
actions, which operate on rows that exist in the target relation, but
not in the data source. These actions can execute UPDATE, DELETE, or
DO NOTHING sub-commands.
This is in contrast to already-supported WHEN NOT MATCHED actions,
which operate on rows that exist in the data source, but not in the
target relation. To make this distinction clearer, such actions may
now be written as WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET.
Writing WHEN NOT MATCHED without specifying BY SOURCE or BY TARGET is
equivalent to writing WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Alvaro Herrera, Ted Yu and Vik Fearing.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWqnKGc57Y_JanUBHQXNKcXd7r=0R4NEZUVwP+syRkWbA@mail.gmail.com
Currently, in read committed transaction isolation mode (default), we have the
following sequence of actions when tuple_update()/tuple_delete() finds
the tuple updated by the concurrent transaction.
1. Attempt to update/delete tuple with tuple_update()/tuple_delete(), which
returns TM_Updated.
2. Lock tuple with tuple_lock().
3. Re-evaluate plan qual (recheck if we still need to update/delete and
calculate the new tuple for update).
4. Second attempt to update/delete tuple with tuple_update()/tuple_delete().
This attempt should be successful, since the tuple was previously locked.
This commit eliminates step 2 by taking the lock during the first
tuple_update()/tuple_delete() call. The heap table access method saves some
effort by checking the updated tuple once instead of twice. Future
undo-based table access methods, which will start from the latest row version,
can immediately place a lock there.
Also, this commit makes tuple_update()/tuple_delete() optionally save the old
tuple into the dedicated slot. That saves efforts on re-fetching tuples in
certain cases.
The code in nodeModifyTable.c is simplified by removing the nested switch/case.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdua-YFw3XTprfutzGp28xXLigFtzNbuFY8yPhqeq6X5kg%40mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Aleksander Alekseev, Pavel Borisov, Vignesh C, Mason Sharp
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Chris Travers
This allows table AM to return a native tuple slot even if
VirtualTupleTableSlot is given as an input. Native tuple slots have knowledge
about system attributes, which could be accessed in the future.
table_multi_insert() method already can modify the input 'slots' array.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdurb9ycV8udYqM%3Do0sPS66PJ4RCBM1g-bBpvzUfogY0EA%40mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Matthias van de Meent, Mark Dilger, Pavel Borisov
Reviewed-by: Nikita Malakhov, Japin Li
This allows a RETURNING clause to be appended to a MERGE query, to
return values based on each row inserted, updated, or deleted. As with
plain INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE commands, the returned values are
based on the new contents of the target table for INSERT and UPDATE
actions, and on its old contents for DELETE actions. Values from the
source relation may also be returned.
As with INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, the output of MERGE ... RETURNING may be
used as the source relation for other operations such as WITH queries
and COPY commands.
Additionally, a special function merge_action() is provided, which
returns 'INSERT', 'UPDATE', or 'DELETE', depending on the action
executed for each row. The merge_action() function can be used
anywhere in the RETURNING list, including in arbitrary expressions and
subqueries, but it is an error to use it anywhere outside of a MERGE
query's RETURNING list.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Isaac Morland, Vik Fearing, Alvaro Herrera,
Gurjeet Singh, Jian He, Jeff Davis, Merlin Moncure, Peter Eisentraut,
and Wolfgang Walther.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWePEGQR5LBn-vD6SfeLZafzEm2Qy_L_Oky2=qw2w3Pzg@mail.gmail.com
When an UPDATE or DELETE action in MERGE returns TM_SelfModified,
there are 2 possible causes:
1). The target tuple was already updated or deleted by the current
command. This can happen if the target row joins to more than one
source row, and the SQL standard explicitly says that this must be
an error.
2). The target tuple was already updated or deleted by a later command
in the current transaction. This can happen if the tuple is
modified by a BEFORE trigger or a volatile function used in the
query, and should be an error for the same reason that it is in a
plain UPDATE or DELETE command.
In MERGE's primary error handling block, it failed to check for (2),
causing it to return a misleading error message in such cases.
In the secondary error handling block, following a concurrent update
from another session, it failed to check for (1), causing it to
silently ignore target rows joined to more than one source row,
instead of reporting an error.
Fix this, and add tests for both of these cases.
Per report from Wenjiang Zhang. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was
introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/tencent_41DE0FF443FE14B94A5898D373792109E408%40qq.com
as determined by include-what-you-use (IWYU)
While IWYU also suggests to *add* a bunch of #include's (which is its
main purpose), this patch does not do that. In some cases, a more
specific #include replaces another less specific one.
Some manual adjustments of the automatic result:
- IWYU currently doesn't know about includes that provide global
variable declarations (like -Wmissing-variable-declarations), so
those includes are being kept manually.
- All includes for port(ability) headers are being kept for now, to
play it safe.
- No changes of catalog/pg_foo.h to catalog/pg_foo_d.h, to keep the
patch from exploding in size.
Note that this patch touches just *.c files, so nothing declared in
header files changes in hidden ways.
As a small example, in src/backend/access/transam/rmgr.c, some IWYU
pragma annotations are added to handle a special case there.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/af837490-6b2f-46df-ba05-37ea6a6653fc%40eisentraut.org
This allows the target relation of MERGE to be an auto-updatable or
trigger-updatable view, and includes support for WITH CHECK OPTION,
security barrier views, and security invoker views.
A trigger-updatable view must have INSTEAD OF triggers for every type
of action (INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE) mentioned in the MERGE command.
An auto-updatable view must not have any INSTEAD OF triggers. Mixing
auto-update and trigger-update actions (i.e., having a partial set of
INSTEAD OF triggers) is not supported.
Rule-updatable views are also not supported, since there is no
rewriter support for non-SELECT rules with MERGE operations.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Jian He and Alvaro Herrera.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCVcB1g0nmxuEc-A+gGB0HnfcGQNGYH7gS=7rq0u0zOBXA@mail.gmail.com
This field has been redundant ever since it was added by commit
25e777cf8e, which split up ExecUpdate() and ExecDelete() into reusable
pieces. The only place that reads it is ExecMergeMatched(), if the
result from ExecUpdateAct() is TM_Ok. However, all paths through
ExecUpdateAct() that return TM_Ok also set this field to true, so the
return status by itself is sufficient to tell if the update happened.
Removing this field is a modest simplification, and it brings the
UPDATE path in ExecMergeMatched() more into line with ExecUpdate(),
ensuring that ExecUpdateEpilogue() is always called if ExecUpdateAct()
returns TM_Ok, reducing the chance of bugs.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Alvaro Herrera.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWGGmigGBzLHkJm5Ccv2mMxXmwi3%2Buq0yhwDHm-tsvSLg%40mail.gmail.com
Fix a bug during MERGE if a cross-partition update is attempted on a
partitioned table with a BEFORE DELETE ROW trigger that returns NULL,
to prevent the update. This would cause an error to be thrown, or an
assert failure in an assert-enabled build.
This was an oversight in 9321c79c86, which failed to properly
distinguish a DELETE prevented by a trigger from one prevented by a
concurrent update. Fix by having ExecDelete() return the TM_Result
status to ExecCrossPartitionUpdate(), so that it can distinguish the
two cases, and make ExecCrossPartitionUpdate() return the TM_Result
status to ExecUpdateAct(), so that it can return the correct status
from a concurrent update.
In addition, ensure that the command tag is correctly updated by
having ExecMergeMatched() pass canSetTag to ExecUpdateAct(), rather
than passing false, so that it updates the command tag if it does a
cross-partition update, making this code path in ExecMergeMatched()
consistent with ExecUpdate().
Per bug #18238 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE
was introduced.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Richard Guo and Jian He.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18238-2f2bdc7f720180b9%40postgresql.org
When executing a MERGE UPDATE action, if the UPDATE is turned into a
cross-partition DELETE then INSERT, do not attempt to invoke AFTER
UPDATE ROW triggers, or any of the other post-update actions in
ExecUpdateEpilogue().
For consistency with a plain UPDATE command, such triggers should not
be fired (and typically fail anyway), and similarly, other post-update
actions, such as WCO/RLS checks should not be executed, and might also
lead to unexpected failures.
Therefore, as with ExecUpdate(), make ExecMergeMatched() return
immediately if ExecUpdateAct() reports that a cross-partition update
was done, to be sure that no further processing is done for that
tuple.
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWjBgagyNZs02vgDF0DvASYj-iHTFtXG2-nP3orZhmtcw%40mail.gmail.com
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
This commit removes unnecessary ExecExprFreeContext() calls in
ExecEnd* routines because the actual cleanup is managed by
FreeExecutorState(). With no callers remaining for
ExecExprFreeContext(), this commit also removes the function.
This commit also drops redundant ExecClearTuple() calls, because
ExecResetTupleTable() in ExecEndPlan() already takes care of
resetting and dropping all TupleTableSlots initialized with
ExecInitScanTupleSlot() and ExecInitExtraTupleSlot().
After these modifications, the ExecEnd*() routines for ValuesScan,
NamedTuplestoreScan, and WorkTableScan became redundant. So, this
commit removes them.
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFGkMSge6TgC9KQzde0ohpAycLQuV7ooitEEpbKB0O_mg@mail.gmail.com
If MERGE executes an UPDATE action on a table with row-level security,
the code incorrectly applied the WITH CHECK clauses from the target
table's INSERT policies to new rows, instead of the clauses from the
table's UPDATE policies. In addition, it failed to check new rows
against the target table's SELECT policies, if SELECT permissions were
required (likely to always be the case).
In addition, if MERGE executes a DO NOTHING action for matched rows,
the code incorrectly applied the USING clauses from the target table's
DELETE policies to existing target tuples. These policies were applied
as checks that would throw an error, if they did not pass.
Fix this, so that a MERGE UPDATE action applies the same RLS policies
as a plain UPDATE query with a WHERE clause, and a DO NOTHING action
does not apply any RLS checks (other than adding clauses from SELECT
policies to the join).
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Stephen Frost.
Security: CVE-2023-39418
Run pgindent, pgperltidy, and reformat-dat-files.
This set of diffs is a bit larger than typical. We've updated to
pg_bsd_indent 2.1.2, which properly indents variable declarations that
have multi-line initialization expressions (the continuation lines are
now indented one tab stop). We've also updated to perltidy version
20230309 and changed some of its settings, which reduces its desire to
add whitespace to lines to make assignments etc. line up. Going
forward, that should make for fewer random-seeming changes to existing
code.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230428092545.qfb3y5wcu4cm75ur@alvherre.pgsql
The idea of EvalPlanQual is that we replace the query's scan of the
result relation with a single injected tuple, and see if we get a
tuple out, thereby implying that the injected tuple still passes the
query quals. (In join cases, other relations in the query are still
scanned normally.) This logic was not updated when commit 86dc90056
made it possible for a single DML query plan to have multiple result
relations, when the query target relation has inheritance or partition
children. We replaced the output for the current result relation
successfully, but other result relations were still scanned normally;
thus, if any other result relation contained a tuple satisfying the
quals, we'd think the EPQ check passed, even if it did not pass for
the injected tuple itself. This would lead to update or delete
actions getting performed when they should have been skipped due to
a conflicting concurrent update in READ COMMITTED isolation mode.
Fix by blocking all sibling result relations from emitting tuples
during an EvalPlanQual recheck. In the back branches, the fix is
complicated a bit by the need to not change the size of struct
EPQState (else we'd have ABI-breaking changes in offsets in
struct ModifyTableState). Like the back-patches of 3f7836ff6
and 4b3e37993, add a separately palloc'd struct to avoid that.
The logic is the same as in HEAD otherwise.
This is only a live bug back to v14 where 86dc90056 came in.
However, I chose to back-patch the test cases further, on the
grounds that this whole area is none too well tested. I skipped
doing so in v11 though because none of the test applied cleanly,
and it didn't quite seem worth extra work for a branch with only
six months to live.
Per report from Ante Krešić (via Aleksander Alekseev)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJ7c6TMBTN3rcz4=AjYhLPD_w3FFT0Wq_C15jxCDn8U4tZnH1g@mail.gmail.com
The leak would show up when using batch inserts with foreign tables
included in a partition tree, as the slots used in the batch were not
reset once processed. In order to fix this problem, some
ExecClearTuple() are added to clean up the slots used once a batch is
filled and processed, mapping with the number of slots currently in use
as tracked by the counter ri_NumSlots.
This buffer refcount leak has been introduced in b676ac4 with the
addition of the executor facility to improve bulk inserts for FDWs, so
backpatch down to 14.
Alexander has provided the patch (slightly modified by me). The test
for postgres_fdw comes from me, based on the test case that the author
has sent in the report.
Author: Alexander Pyhalov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b035780a740efd38dc30790c76927255@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch-through: 14
This fixes many spelling mistakes in comments, but a few references to
invalid parameter names, function names and option names too in comments
and also some in string constants
Also, fix an #undef that was undefining the incorrect definition
Author: Alexander Lakhin
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d5f68d19-c0fc-91a9-118d-7c6a5a3f5fad@gmail.com
Currently, in read committed transaction isolation mode (default), we have the
following sequence of actions when tuple_update()/tuple_delete() finds
the tuple updated by concurrent transaction.
1. Attempt to update/delete tuple with tuple_update()/tuple_delete(), which
returns TM_Updated.
2. Lock tuple with tuple_lock().
3. Re-evaluate plan qual (recheck if we still need to update/delete and
calculate the new tuple for update).
4. Second attempt to update/delete tuple with tuple_update()/tuple_delete().
This attempt should be successful, since the tuple was previously locked.
This patch eliminates step 2 by taking the lock during first
tuple_update()/tuple_delete() call. Heap table access method saves some
efforts by checking the updated tuple once instead of twice. Future
undo-based table access methods, which will start from the latest row version,
can immediately place a lock there.
The code in nodeModifyTable.c is simplified by removing the nested switch/case.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdua-YFw3XTprfutzGp28xXLigFtzNbuFY8yPhqeq6X5kg%40mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Aleksander Alekseev, Pavel Borisov, Vignesh C, Mason Sharp
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Chris Travers
When we lock tuple using table_tuple_lock() then we at the same time fetch
the locked tuple to the slot. In this case we can skip extra
table_tuple_fetch_row_version() thank to we've already fetched the 'old' tuple
and nobody can change it concurrently since it's locked.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdua-YFw3XTprfutzGp28xXLigFtzNbuFY8yPhqeq6X5kg%40mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Aleksander Alekseev, Pavel Borisov, Vignesh C, Mason Sharp
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Chris Travers
When determining whether an index update may be skipped by using HOT, we
can ignore attributes indexed by block summarizing indexes without
references to individual tuples that need to be cleaned up.
A new type TU_UpdateIndexes provides a signal to the executor to
determine which indexes to update - no indexes, all indexes, or only the
summarizing indexes.
This also removes rd_indexattr list, and replaces it with rd_attrsvalid
flag. The list was not used anywhere, and a simple flag is sufficient.
This was originally committed as 5753d4ee32, but then got reverted by
e3fcca0d0d because of correctness issues.
Original patch by Josef Simanek, various fixes and improvements by Tomas
Vondra and me.
Authors: Matthias van de Meent, Josef Simanek, Tomas Vondra
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra, Alvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/05ebcb44-f383-86e3-4f31-0a97a55634cf@enterprisedb.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFp7QwpMRGcDAQumN7onN9HjrJ3u4X3ZRXdGFT0K5G2JWvnbWg%40mail.gmail.com
This ensures that the row count in the command tag for a MERGE is
correctly computed in the case where UPDATEs or DELETEs are skipped
due to a BEFORE ROW trigger returning NULL (the INSERT case was
already handled correctly by ExecMergeNotMatched() calling
ExecInsert()).
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCU8XEmR0JWKDtyb7iZ%3DqCffxS9uyJt0iOZ4TV4RT%2Bow1w%40mail.gmail.com
If MERGE attempts an UPDATE or DELETE on a table with BEFORE ROW
triggers, or a cross-partition UPDATE (with or without triggers), and
a concurrent UPDATE or DELETE happens, the merge code would fail.
In some cases this would lead to a crash, while in others it would
cause the wrong merge action to be executed, or no action at all. The
immediate cause of the crash was the trigger code calling
ExecGetUpdateNewTuple() as part of the EPQ mechanism, which fails
because during a merge ri_projectNew is NULL, since merge has its own
per-action projection information, which ExecGetUpdateNewTuple() knows
nothing about.
Fix by arranging for the trigger code to exit early, returning the
TM_Result and TM_FailureData information, if a concurrent modification
is detected, allowing the merge code to do the necessary EPQ handling
in its own way. Similarly, prevent the cross-partition update code
from doing any EPQ processing for a merge, allowing the merge code to
work out what it needs to do.
This leads to a number of simplifications in nodeModifyTable.c. Most
notably, the ModifyTableContext->GetUpdateNewTuple() callback is no
longer needed, and mergeGetUpdateNewTuple() can be deleted, since
there is no longer any requirement for get-update-new-tuple during a
merge. Similarly, ModifyTableContext->cpUpdateRetrySlot is no longer
needed. Thus ExecGetUpdateNewTuple() and the retry_slot handling of
ExecCrossPartitionUpdate() can be restored to how they were in v14,
before the merge code was added, and ExecMergeMatched() no longer
needs any special-case handling for cross-partition updates.
While at it, tidy up ExecUpdateEpilogue() a bit, making it handle
recheckIndexes locally, rather than passing it in as a parameter,
ensuring that it is freed properly. This dates back to when it was
split off from ExecUpdate() to support merge.
Per bug #17809 from Alexander Lakhin, and follow-up investigation of
bug #17792, also from Alexander Lakhin.
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced, taking care to preserve
backwards-compatibility of the trigger API in v15 for any extensions
that might use it.
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/17809-9e6650bef133f0fe%40postgresql.orghttps://postgr.es/m/17792-0f89452029662c36%40postgresql.org
If UPDATE is forced to retry after an EvalPlanQual check, it neglected
to repeat GENERATED-column computations, even though those might well
have changed since we're dealing with a different tuple than before.
Fixing this is mostly a matter of looping back a bit further when
we retry. In v15 and HEAD that's most easily done by altering the API
of ExecUpdateAct so that it includes computing GENERATED expressions.
Also, if an UPDATE in a partitioned table turns into a cross-partition
INSERT operation, we failed to recompute GENERATED columns. That's a
bug since 8bf6ec3ba allowed partitions to have different generation
expressions; although it seems to have no ill effects before that.
Fixing this is messier because we can now have situations where the same
query needs both the UPDATE-aligned set of GENERATED columns and the
INSERT-aligned set, and it's unclear which set will be generated first
(else we could hack things by forcing the INSERT-aligned set to be
generated, which is indeed how fe9e658f4 made it work for MERGE).
The best fix seems to be to build and store separate sets of expressions
for the INSERT and UPDATE cases. That would create ABI issues in the
back branches, but so far it seems we can leave this alone in the back
branches.
Per bug #17823 from Hisahiro Kauchi. The first part of this affects all
branches back to v12 where GENERATED columns were added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17823-b64909cf7d63de84@postgresql.org
This ensures that the row count in the command tag for a MERGE is
correctly computed. Previously, if MERGE updated a partitioned table,
the row count would be incorrect if any row was moved to a different
partition, since such updates were counted twice.
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWRMG7XX2QEsVL1LswmNo2d_YG8tKTLkpD3=Lp644S7rg@mail.gmail.com
On MERGE / WHEN MATCHED DELETE it's not possible to get cross-partition
updates, so we don't initialize cpUpdateRetrySlot; however, the code was
not careful to ignore the value in that case. Make it do so.
Backpatch to 15.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17792-0f89452029662c36@postgresql.org
This fixes a bug that, under some circumstances, would cause MERGE to
fail to properly recompute expressions for GENERATED STORED columns.
Formerly, ExecInitModifyTable() did not call ExecInitStoredGenerated()
for a MERGE command, which meant that the generated expressions
information was not computed until later, when the first merge action
was executed. However, if the first merge action to execute was an
UPDATE, then ExecInitStoredGenerated() could decide to skip some some
generated columns, if the columns on which they depended were not
updated, which was a problem if the MERGE also contained an INSERT
action, for which no generated columns should be skipped.
So fix by having ExecInitModifyTable() call ExecInitStoredGenerated()
for MERGE, and assume that it isn't safe to skip any generated columns
in a MERGE. Possibly that could be relaxed, by allowing some generated
columns to be skipped for a MERGE without an INSERT action, but it's
not clear that it's worth the effort.
Noticed while investigating bug #17759. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE
was added.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Tom Lane.
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/17759-e76d9bece1b5421c%40postgresql.orghttps://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCXb_ezoMCcL0tzKwRGA1x0oeE%3DawTaysRfTPq%2B3wNJn8g%40mail.gmail.com
In commit 8bf6ec3ba I assumed that no code path could reach
ExecGetExtraUpdatedCols without having gone through
ExecInitStoredGenerated. That turns out not to be the case in
logical replication: if there's an ON UPDATE trigger on the target
table, trigger.c will call this code before anybody has set up its
generated columns. Having seen that, I don't have a lot of faith in
there not being other such paths. ExecGetExtraUpdatedCols can call
ExecInitStoredGenerated for itself, as long as we are willing to
assume that it is only called in CMD_UPDATE operations, which on
the whole seems like a safer leap of faith.
Per report from Vitaly Davydov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d259d69652b8c2ff50e14cda3c236c7f@postgrespro.ru
