create_lateral_join_info() computes a bunch of information about lateral
references between base relations, and then attempts to propagate those
markings to appendrel children of the original base relations. But the
original coding neglected the possibility of indirect descendants
(grandchildren etc). During v11 development we noticed that this was
wrong for partitioned-table cases, but failed to realize that it was just
as wrong for any appendrel. While the case can't arise for appendrels
derived from traditional table inheritance (because we make a flat
appendrel for that), nested appendrels can arise from nested UNION ALL
subqueries. Failure to mark the lower-level relations as having lateral
references leads to confusion in add_paths_to_append_rel about whether
unparameterized paths can be built. It's not very clear whether that
leads to any user-visible misbehavior; the lack of field reports suggests
that it may cause nothing worse than minor cost misestimation. Still,
it's a bug, and it leads to failures of Asserts that I intend to add
later.
To fix, we need to propagate information from all appendrel parents,
not just those that are RELOPT_BASERELs. We can still do it in one
pass, if we rely on the append_rel_list to be ordered with ancestor
relationships before descendant ones; add assertions checking that.
While fixing this, we can make a small performance improvement by
traversing the append_rel_list just once instead of separately for
each appendrel parent relation.
Noted while investigating bug #15613, though this patch does not fix
that (which is why I'm not committing the related Asserts yet).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3951.1549403812@sss.pgh.pa.us
Up to now, createplan.c attempted to share PARAM_EXEC slots for
NestLoopParams across different plan levels, if the same underlying Var
was being fed down to different righthand-side subplan trees by different
NestLoops. This was, I think, more of an artifact of using subselect.c's
PlannerParamItem infrastructure than an explicit design goal, but anyway
that was the end result.
This works well enough as long as the plan tree is executing synchronously,
but the feature whereby Gather can execute the parallelized subplan locally
breaks it. An upper NestLoop node might execute for a row retrieved from
a parallel worker, and assign a value for a PARAM_EXEC slot from that row,
while the leader's copy of the parallelized subplan is suspended with a
different active value of the row the Var comes from. When control
eventually returns to the leader's subplan, it gets the wrong answers if
the same PARAM_EXEC slot is being used within the subplan, as reported
in bug #15577 from Bartosz Polnik.
This is pretty reminiscent of the problem fixed in commit 46c508fbc, and
the proper fix seems to be the same: don't try to share PARAM_EXEC slots
across different levels of controlling NestLoop nodes.
This requires decoupling NestLoopParam handling from PlannerParamItem
handling, although the logic remains somewhat similar. To avoid bizarre
division of labor between subselect.c and createplan.c, I decided to move
all the param-slot-assignment logic for both cases out of those files
and put it into a new file paramassign.c. Hopefully it's a bit better
documented now, too.
A regression test case for this might be nice, but we don't know a
test case that triggers the problem with a suitably small amount
of data.
Back-patch to 9.6 where we added Gather nodes. It's conceivable that
related problems exist in older branches; but without some evidence
for that, I'll leave the older branches alone.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15577-ca61ab18904af852@postgresql.org
MinMaxExpr invokes the btree comparison function for its input datatype,
so it's only leakproof if that function is. Many such functions are
indeed leakproof, but others are not, and we should not just assume that
they are. Hence, adjust contain_leaked_vars to verify the leakproofness
of the referenced function explicitly.
I didn't add a regression test because it would need to depend on
some particular comparison function being leaky, and that's a moving
target, per discussion.
This has been wrong all along, so back-patch to supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/31042.1546194242@sss.pgh.pa.us
"rescanratio" was computed as 1 + rescanned-tuples / total-inner-tuples,
which is sensible if it's to be multiplied by total-inner-tuples or a cost
value corresponding to scanning all the inner tuples. But in reality it
was (mostly) multiplied by inner_rows or a related cost, numbers that take
into account the possibility of stopping short of scanning the whole inner
relation thanks to a limited key range in the outer relation. This'd
still make sense if we could expect that stopping short would result in a
proportional decrease in the number of tuples that have to be rescanned.
It does not, however. The argument that establishes the validity of our
estimate for that number is independent of whether we scan all of the inner
relation or stop short, and experimentation also shows that stopping short
doesn't reduce the number of rescanned tuples. So the correct calculation
is 1 + rescanned-tuples / inner_rows, and we should be sure to multiply
that by inner_rows or a corresponding cost value.
Most of the time this doesn't make much difference, but if we have
both a high rescan rate (due to lots of duplicate values) and an outer
key range much smaller than the inner key range, then the error can
be significant, leading to a large underestimate of the cost associated
with rescanning.
Per report from Vijaykumar Jain. This thinko appears to go all the way
back to the introduction of the rescan estimation logic in commit
70fba7043, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAE7uO5hMb_TZYJcZmLAgO6iD68AkEK6qCe7i=vZUkCpoKns+EQ@mail.gmail.com
postgres_fdw's postgresGetForeignPlan() assumes without checking that the
outer_plan it's given for a join relation must have a NestLoop, MergeJoin,
or HashJoin node at the top. That's been wrong at least since commit
4bbf6edfb (which could cause insertion of a Sort node on top) and it seems
like a pretty unsafe thing to Just Assume even without that.
Through blind good fortune, this doesn't seem to have any worse
consequences today than strange EXPLAIN output, but it's clearly trouble
waiting to happen.
To fix, test the node type explicitly before touching Join-specific
fields, and avoid jamming the new tlist into a node type that can't
do projection. Export a new support function from createplan.c
to avoid building low-level knowledge about the latter into FDWs.
Back-patch to 9.6 where the faulty coding was added. Note that the
associated regression test cases don't show any changes before v11,
apparently because the tests back-patched with 4bbf6edfb don't actually
exercise the problem case before then (there's no top-level Sort
in those plans).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8946.1544644803@sss.pgh.pa.us
Our support for multiple-set-clauses in UPDATE assumes that the Params
referencing a MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK SubPlan will appear before that SubPlan
in the targetlist of the plan node that calculates the updated row.
(Yeah, it's a hack...) In some PG branches it's possible that a Result
node gets inserted between the primary calculation of the update tlist
and the ModifyTable node. setrefs.c did the wrong thing in this case
and left the upper-level Params as Params, causing a crash at runtime.
What it should do is replace them with "outer" Vars referencing the child
plan node's output. That's a result of careless ordering of operations
in fix_upper_expr_mutator, so we can fix it just by reordering the code.
Fix fix_join_expr_mutator similarly for consistency, even though join
nodes could never appear in such a context. (In general, it seems
likely to be a bit cheaper to use Vars than Params in such situations
anyway, so this patch might offer a tiny performance improvement.)
The hazard extends back to 9.5 where the MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK stuff
was introduced, so back-patch that far. However, this may be a live
bug only in 9.6.x and 10.x, as the other branches don't seem to want
to calculate the final tlist below the Result node. (That plan shape
change between branches might be a mini-bug in itself, but I'm not
really interested in digging into the reasons for that right now.
Still, add a regression test memorializing what we expect there,
so we'll notice if it changes again.)
Per bug report from Eduards Bezverhijs.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b6cd572a-3e44-8785-75e9-c512a5a17a73@tieto.com
classify_index_clause_usage() is O(N^2) in the number of distinct index
qual clauses it considers, because of its use of a simple search list to
store them. For nearly all queries, that's fine because only a few clauses
will be considered. But Alexander Kuzmenkov reported a machine-generated
query with 80000 (!) index qual clauses, which caused this code to take
forever. Somewhat remarkably, this is the only O(N^2) behavior we now
have for such a query, so let's fix it.
We can get rid of the O(N^2) runtime for cases like this without much
damage to the functionality of choose_bitmap_and() by separating out
paths with "too many" qual or pred clauses, and deeming them to always
be nonredundant with other paths. Then their clauses needn't go into
the search list, so it doesn't get too long, but we don't lose the
ability to consider bitmap AND plans altogether. I set the threshold
for "too many" to be 100 clauses per path, which should be plenty to
ensure no change in planning behavior for normal queries.
There are other things we could do to make this go faster, but it's not
clear that it's worth any additional effort. 80000 qual clauses require
a whole lot of work in many other places, too.
The code's been like this for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches. The troublesome query only works back to 9.5 (in 9.4 it fails
with stack overflow in the parser); so I'm not sure that fixing this in
9.4 has any real-world benefit, but perhaps it does.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/90c5bdfa-d633-dabe-9889-3cf3e1acd443@postgrespro.ru
Allowing sub-select containing LIMIT/OFFSET in workers can lead to
inconsistent results at the top-level as there is no guarantee that the
row order will be fully deterministic. The fix is to prohibit pushing
LIMIT/OFFSET within sub-selects to workers.
Reported-by: Andrew Fletcher
Bug: 15324
Author: Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Dilip Kumar
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/153417684333.10284.11356259990921828616@wrigleys.postgresql.org
workers.
Allowing window function calculation in workers leads to inconsistent
results because if the input row ordering is not fully deterministic, the
output of window functions might vary across workers. The fix is to treat
them as parallel-restricted.
In the passing, improve the coding pattern in max_parallel_hazard_walker
so that it has a chain of mutually-exclusive if ... else if ... else if
... else if ... IsA tests.
Reported-by: Marko Tiikkaja
Bug: 15324
Author: Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAL9smLAnfPJCDUUG4ckX2iznj53V7VSMsYefzZieN93YxTNOcw@mail.gmail.com
GatherMergePath (introduced in 10) and CustomPath (introduced in 9.5)
have gone missing. The order of the Path nodes was inconsistent with
what is listed in nodes.h, so make the order consistent at the same time
to ease future checks and additions.
Author: Sawada Masahiko
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAD21AoBQMLoc=ohH-oocuAPsELrmk8_EsRJjOyR8FQLZkbE0wA@mail.gmail.com
In final_cost_hashjoin(), commit 9c7f5229a allowed inner_unique cases
to follow a code path previously used only for SEMI/ANTI joins; but it
neglected to fix an if-test within that path that assumed SEMI and ANTI
were the only possible cases. This resulted in a wrong value for
hashjointuples, and an ensuing bad cost estimate, for inner_unique normal
joins. Fortunately, for inner_unique normal joins we can assume the number
of joined tuples is the same as for a SEMI join; so there's no need for
more code, we just have to invert the test to check for ANTI not SEMI.
It turns out that in two contrib tests in which commit 9c7f5229a
changed the plan expected for a query, the change was actually wrong
and induced by this estimation error, not by any real improvement.
Hence this patch also reverts those changes.
Per report from RK Korlapati. Backpatch to v10 where the error was
introduced.
David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+SNy03bhq0fodsfOkeWDCreNjJVjsdHwUsb7AG=jpe0PtZc_g@mail.gmail.com
We should only run apply_pathtarget_labeling_to_tlist if CP_LABEL_TLIST
was specified, because only in that case has use_physical_tlist checked
that the labeling will succeed; otherwise we may get an "ORDER/GROUP BY
expression not found in targetlist" error. (This subsumes the previous
test about gating_clauses, because we reset "flags" to zero earlier
if there are gating clauses to apply.)
The only known case in which a failure can occur is with a ProjectSet
path directly atop a table scan path, although it seems likely that there
are other cases or will be such in future. This means that the failure
is currently only visible in the v10 branch: 9.6 didn't have ProjectSet,
while in v11 and HEAD, apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths for some weird
reason is using create_projection_path not apply_projection_to_path,
masking the problem because there's a ProjectionPath in between.
Nonetheless this code is clearly wrong on its own terms, so back-patch
to 9.6 where this logic was introduced.
Per report from Regina Obe.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/001501d40f88$75186950$5f493bf0$@pcorp.us
split_pathtarget_at_srfs() neglected to worry about sortgroupref labels
in the intermediate PathTargets it constructs. I think we'd supposed
that their labeling didn't matter, but it does at least for the case that
GroupAggregate/GatherMerge nodes appear immediately under the ProjectSet
step(s). This results in "ERROR: ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in
targetlist" during create_plan(), as reported by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.
To fix, make this logic track the sortgroupref labeling of expressions,
not just their contents. This also restores the pre-v10 behavior that
separate GROUP BY expressions will be kept distinct even if they are
textually equal().
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6=1_Ye9kx8YLBPmJs_xE72PPc6vNi5q2AOHowMaCWjJ2w@mail.gmail.com
canonicalize_ec_expression() is supposed to agree with coerce_type() as to
whether a RelabelType should be inserted to make a subexpression be valid
input for the operators of a given opclass. However, it did the wrong
thing with named-composite-type inputs to record_eq(): it put in a
RelabelType to RECORDOID, which the parser doesn't. In some cases this was
harmless because all code paths involving a particular equivalence class
did the same thing, but in other cases this would result in failing to
recognize a composite-type expression as being a member of an equivalence
class that it actually is a member of. The most obvious bad effect was to
fail to recognize that an index on a composite column could provide the
sort order needed for a mergejoin on that column, as reported by Teodor
Sigaev. I think there might be other, subtler, cases that result in
misoptimization. It also seems possible that an unwanted RelabelType
would sometimes get into an emitted plan --- but because record_eq and
friends don't examine the declared type of their input expressions, that
would not create any visible problems.
To fix, just treat RECORDOID as if it were a polymorphic type, which in
some sense it is. We might want to consider formalizing that a bit more
someday, but for the moment this seems to be the only place where an
IsPolymorphicType() test ought to include RECORDOID as well.
This has been broken for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/a6b22369-e3bf-4d49-f59d-0c41d3551e81@sigaev.ru
On further reflection, commit e5d83995e didn't go far enough: pretty much
everywhere in the planner that examines a clause's is_pushed_down flag
ought to be changed to use the more complicated behavior where we also
check the clause's required_relids. Otherwise we could make incorrect
decisions about whether, say, a clause is safe to use as a hash clause.
Some (many?) of these places are safe as-is, either because they are
never reached while considering a parameterized path, or because there
are additional checks that would reject a pushed-down clause anyway.
However, it seems smarter to just code them all the same way rather
than rely on easily-broken reasoning of that sort.
In support of that, invent a new macro RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN that should
be used in place of direct tests on the is_pushed_down flag.
Like the previous patch, back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f8128b11-c5bf-3539-48cd-234178b2314d@proxel.se
In some cases a clause attached to an outer join can be pushed down into
the outer join's RHS even though the clause is not degenerate --- this
can happen if we choose to make a parameterized path for the RHS. If
the clause ends up attached to a lower outer join, we'd misclassify it
as being a "join filter" not a plain "filter" condition at that node,
leading to wrong query results.
To fix, teach extract_actual_join_clauses to examine each join clause's
required_relids, not just its is_pushed_down flag. (The latter now
seems vestigial, or at least in need of rethinking, but we won't do
anything so invasive as redefining it in a bug-fix patch.)
This has been wrong since we introduced parameterized paths in 9.2,
though it's evidently hard to hit given the lack of previous reports.
The test case used here involves a lateral function call, and I think
that a lateral reference may be required to get the planner to select
a broken plan; though I wouldn't swear to that. In any case, even if
LATERAL is needed to trigger the bug, it still affects all supported
branches, so back-patch to all.
Per report from Andreas Karlsson. Thanks to Andrew Gierth for
preliminary investigation.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f8128b11-c5bf-3539-48cd-234178b2314d@proxel.se
If there were multiple grouping sets, none of them empty, all of which
were unsortable, then an oversight in consider_groupingsets_paths led
to a null pointer dereference. Fix, and add a regression test for this
case.
Per report from Dang Minh Huong, though I didn't use their patch.
Backpatch to 10.x where hashed grouping sets were added.
One of the things canonicalize_qual() does is to remove constant-NULL
subexpressions of top-level AND/OR clauses. It does that on the assumption
that what it's given is a top-level WHERE clause, so that NULL can be
treated like FALSE. Although this is documented down inside a subroutine
of canonicalize_qual(), it wasn't mentioned in the documentation of that
function itself, and some callers hadn't gotten that memo.
Notably, commit d007a9505 caused get_relation_constraints() to apply
canonicalize_qual() to CHECK constraints. That allowed constraint
exclusion to misoptimize situations in which a CHECK constraint had a
provably-NULL subclause, as seen in the regression test case added here,
in which a child table that should be scanned is not. (Although this
thinko is ancient, the test case doesn't fail before 9.2, for reasons
I've not bothered to track down in detail. There may be related cases
that do fail before that.)
More recently, commit f0e44751d added an independent bug by applying
canonicalize_qual() to index expressions, which is even sillier since
those might not even be boolean. If they are, though, I think this
could lead to making incorrect index entries for affected index
expressions in v10. I haven't attempted to prove that though.
To fix, add an "is_check" parameter to canonicalize_qual() to specify
whether it should assume WHERE or CHECK semantics, and make it perform
NULL-elimination accordingly. Adjust the callers to apply the right
semantics, or remove the call entirely in cases where it's not known
that the expression has one or the other semantics. I also removed
the call in some cases involving partition expressions, where it should
be a no-op because such expressions should be canonical already ...
and was a no-op, independently of whether it could in principle have
done something, because it was being handed the qual in implicit-AND
format which isn't what it expects. In HEAD, add an Assert to catch
that type of mistake in future.
This represents an API break for external callers of canonicalize_qual().
While that's intentional in HEAD to make such callers think about which
case applies to them, it seems like something we probably wouldn't be
thanked for in released branches. Hence, in released branches, the
extra parameter is added to a new function canonicalize_qual_ext(),
and canonicalize_qual() is a wrapper that retains its old behavior.
Patch by me with suggestions from Dean Rasheed. Back-patch to all
supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/24475.1520635069@sss.pgh.pa.us
Since 9.5, it's possible that some but not all columns of an index
support returning the indexed value for index-only scans. If the
same indexed column appears in index columns that behave both ways,
check_index_only() supposed that it'd be OK to do an index-only scan
testing that column; but that fails if we have to recheck the indexed
condition on one of the columns that doesn't support this.
In principle we could make this work by remapping the recheck expressions
to pull the value from a column that does support returning the indexed
value. But such cases are so weird and rare that, at least for now,
it doesn't seem worth the trouble. Instead, just teach check_index_only
that a value is returnable only if all the index columns containing it
are returnable, rather than any of them.
Per report from David Pereiro Lagares. Back-patch to 9.5 where the
possibility of this situation appeared.
Kyotaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1516210494.1798.16.camel@nlpgo.com
Given overlapping or partially redundant join clauses, for example
t1 JOIN t2 ON t1.a = t2.x AND t1.b = t2.x
the planner's EquivalenceClass machinery will ordinarily refactor the
clauses as "t1.a = t1.b AND t1.a = t2.x", so that join processing doesn't
see multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass in a list of join
equality clauses. However, if the join is outer, it's incorrect to derive
a restriction clause on the outer side from the join conditions, so the
clause refactoring does not happen and we end up with overlapping join
conditions. The code that attempted to deal with such cases had several
subtle bugs, which could result in "left and right pathkeys do not match in
mergejoin" or "outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses" planner errors,
if the selected join plan type was a mergejoin. (It does not appear that
any actually incorrect plan could have been emitted.)
The core of the problem really was failure to recognize that the outer and
inner relations' pathkeys have different relationships to the mergeclause
list. A join's mergeclause list is constructed by reference to the outer
pathkeys, so it will always be ordered the same as the outer pathkeys, but
this cannot be presumed true for the inner pathkeys. If the inner sides of
the mergeclauses contain multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass
({t2.x} in the above example) then a simplistic rendering of the required
inner sort order is like "ORDER BY t2.x, t2.x", but the pathkey machinery
recognizes that the second sort column is redundant and throws it away.
The mergejoin planning code failed to account for that behavior properly.
One error was to try to generate cut-down versions of the mergeclause list
from cut-down versions of the inner pathkeys in the same way as the initial
construction of the mergeclause list from the outer pathkeys was done; this
could lead to choosing a mergeclause list that fails to match the outer
pathkeys. The other problem was that the pathkey cross-checking code in
create_mergejoin_plan treated the inner and outer pathkey lists
identically, whereas actually the expectations for them must be different.
That led to false "pathkeys do not match" failures in some cases, and in
principle could have led to failure to detect bogus plans in other cases,
though there is no indication that such bogus plans could be generated.
Reported by Alexander Kuzmenkov, who also reviewed this patch. This has
been broken for years (back to around 8.3 according to my testing), so
back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5dad9160-4632-0e47-e120-8e2082000c01@postgrespro.ru
create_plan_recurse lacked any stack depth check. This is not per
our normal coding rules, but I'd supposed it was safe because earlier
planner processing is more complex and presumably should eat more
stack. But bug #15033 from Andrew Grossman shows this isn't true,
at least not for queries having the form of a many-thousand-way
INTERSECT stack.
Further testing showed that recurse_set_operations is also capable
of being crashed in this way, since it likewise will recurse to the
bottom of a parsetree before calling any support functions that
might themselves contain any stack checks. However, its stack
consumption is only perhaps a third of create_plan_recurse's.
It's possible that this particular problem with create_plan_recurse can
only manifest in 9.6 and later, since before that we didn't build a Path
tree for set operations. But having seen this example, I now have no
faith in the proposition that create_plan_recurse doesn't need a stack
check, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180127050845.28812.58244@wrigleys.postgresql.org
If we're inside a lateral subquery, there may be no unparameterized paths
for a particular child relation of an appendrel, in which case we *must*
be able to create similarly-parameterized paths for each other child
relation, else the planner will fail with "could not devise a query plan
for the given query". This means that there are situations where we'd
better be able to reparameterize at least one path for each child.
This calls into question the assumption in reparameterize_path() that
it can just punt if it feels like it. However, the only case that is
known broken right now is where the child is itself an appendrel so that
all its paths are AppendPaths. (I think possibly I disregarded that in
the original coding on the theory that nested appendrels would get folded
together --- but that only happens *after* reparameterize_path(), so it's
not excused from handling a child AppendPath.) Given that this code's been
like this since 9.3 when LATERAL was introduced, it seems likely we'd have
heard of other cases by now if there were a larger problem.
Per report from Elvis Pranskevichus. Back-patch to 9.3.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5981018.zdth1YWmNy@hammer.magicstack.net
If a query against an inheritance tree runs concurrently with an ALTER
TABLE that's disinheriting one of the tree members, it's possible to get
a "could not find inherited attribute" error because after obtaining lock
on the removed member, make_inh_translation_list sees that its columns
have attinhcount=0 and decides they aren't the columns it's looking for.
An ideal fix, perhaps, would avoid including such a just-removed member
table in the query at all; but there seems no way to accomplish that
without adding expensive catalog rechecks or creating a likelihood of
deadlocks. Instead, let's just drop the check on attinhcount. In this
way, a query that's included a just-disinherited child will still
succeed, which is not a completely unreasonable behavior.
This problem has existed for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches. Also add an isolation test verifying related behaviors.
Patch by me; the new isolation test is based on Kyotaro Horiguchi's work.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170626.174612.23936762.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
If we flatten a subquery whose target list contains constants or
expressions, when those output columns are used in GROUPING SET columns,
the planner was capable of doing the wrong thing by merging a pulled-up
expression into the surrounding expression during const-simplification.
Then the late processing that attempts to match subexpressions to grouping
sets would fail to match those subexpressions to grouping sets, with the
effect that they'd not go to null when expected.
To fix, wrap such subquery outputs in PlaceHolderVars, ensuring that
they preserve their separate identity throughout the planner's expression
processing. This is a bit of a band-aid, because the wrapper defeats
const-simplification even in places where it would be safe to allow.
But a nicer fix would likely be too invasive to back-patch, and the
consequences of the missed optimizations probably aren't large in most
cases.
Back-patch to 9.5 where grouping sets were introduced.
Heikki Linnakangas, with small mods and better test cases by me;
additional review by Andrew Gierth
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7dbdcf5c-b5a6-ef89-4958-da212fe10176@iki.fi
Since 9.4, we've allowed the syntax "select union select" and variants
of that. However, the planner wasn't expecting a no-column set operation
and ended up treating the set operation as if it were UNION ALL.
Turns out it's trivial to fix in v10 and later; we just need to be careful
about not generating a Sort node with no sort keys. However, since a weird
corner case like this is never going to be exercised by developers, we'd
better have thorough regression tests if we want to consider it supported.
Per report from Victor Yegorov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGnEbojGJrRSOgJwNGM7JSJZpVAf8xXcVPbVrGdhbVEHZ-BUMw@mail.gmail.com
rewriteTargetListUD's processing is dependent on the relkind of the query's
target table. That was fine at the time it was made to act that way, even
for queries on inheritance trees, because all tables in an inheritance tree
would necessarily be plain tables. However, the 9.5 feature addition
allowing some members of an inheritance tree to be foreign tables broke the
assumption that rewriteTargetListUD's output tlist could be applied to all
child tables with nothing more than column-number mapping. This led to
visible failures if foreign child tables had row-level triggers, and would
also break in cases where child tables belonged to FDWs that used methods
other than CTID for row identification.
To fix, delay running rewriteTargetListUD until after the planner has
expanded inheritance, so that it is applied separately to the (already
mapped) tlist for each child table. We can conveniently call it from
preprocess_targetlist. Refactor associated code slightly to avoid the
need to heap_open the target relation multiple times during
preprocess_targetlist. (The APIs remain a bit ugly, particularly around
the point of which steps scribble on parse->targetList and which don't.
But avoiding such scribbling would require a change in FDW callback APIs,
which is more pain than it's worth.)
Also fix ExecModifyTable to ensure that "tupleid" is reset to NULL when
we transition from rows providing a CTID to rows that don't. (That's
really an independent bug, but it manifests in much the same cases.)
Add a regression test checking one manifestation of this problem, which
was that row-level triggers on a foreign child table did not work right.
Back-patch to 9.5 where the problem was introduced.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Ildus Kurbangaliev and Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170514150525.0346ba72@postgrespro.ru
Improve query_is_distinct_for() to accept SRFs in the targetlist when
we can prove distinctness from a DISTINCT clause. In that case the
de-duplication will surely happen after SRF expansion, so the proof
still works. Continue to punt in the case where we'd try to prove
distinctness from GROUP BY (or, in the future, source relations).
To do that, we'd have to determine whether the SRFs were in the
grouping columns or elsewhere in the tlist, and it still doesn't
seem worth the trouble. But this trivial change allows us to
recognize that "SELECT DISTINCT unnest(foo) FROM ..." produces
unique-ified output, which seems worth having.
Also, fix estimate_num_groups() to consider the possibility of SRFs in
the grouping columns. Its failure to do so was masked before v10 because
grouping_planner() scaled up plan rowcount estimates by the estimated SRF
multiplier after performing grouping. That doesn't happen anymore, which
is more correct, but it means we need an adjustment in the estimate for
the number of groups. Failure to do this leads to an underestimate for
the number of output rows of subqueries like "SELECT DISTINCT unnest(foo)"
compared to what 9.6 and earlier estimated, thus breaking plan choices
in some cases.
Per report from Dmitry Shalashov. Back-patch to v10 to avoid degraded
plan choices compared to previous releases.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKPeCUGAeHgoh5O=SvcQxREVkoX7UdeJUMj1F5=aBNvoTa+O8w@mail.gmail.com
This was always intended to work, but due to an oversight in
max_parallel_hazard_walker, it didn't. In testing, we missed the
fact that it was only working for custom plans, where the parameter
value has been substituted for the parameter itself early enough
that everything worked. In a generic plan, the Param node survives
and must be treated as parallel-safe. SerializeParamList provides
for the transmission of parameter values to workers.
Amit Kapila with help from Kuntal Ghosh. Some changes by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+_BuZrmVCeua5Eqnm4Co9DAXdM5HPAOE2J19ePbR912Q@mail.gmail.com
Previously, we skipped using search_indexed_tlist_for_sortgroupref()
if the tlist expression being sought in the child plan node was merely
a Var. This is purely an optimization, based on the theory that
search_indexed_tlist_for_var() is faster, and one copy of a Var should
be as good as another. However, the GROUPING SETS patch broke the
latter assumption: grouping columns containing the "same" Var can
sometimes have different outputs, as shown in the test case added here.
So do it the hard way whenever a ressortgroupref marking exists.
(If this seems like a bottleneck, we could imagine building a tlist index
data structure for ressortgroupref values, as we do for Vars. But I'll
let that idea go until there's some evidence it's worthwhile.)
Back-patch to 9.6. The problem also exists in 9.5 where GROUPING SETS
came in, but this patch is insufficient to resolve the problem in 9.5:
there is some obscure dependency on the upper-planner-pathification
work that happened in 9.6. Given that this is such a weird corner case,
and no end users have complained about it, it doesn't seem worth the work
to develop a fix for 9.5.
Patch by me, per a report from Heikki Linnakangas. (This does not fix
Heikki's original complaint, just the follow-on one.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/aefc657e-edb2-64d5-6df1-a0828f6e9104@iki.fi
Although joinaliasvars lists coming out of the parser are quite simple,
those lists can contain arbitrarily complex expressions after subquery
pullup. We do not perform expression preprocessing on them, meaning that
expressions in those lists will not meet the expectations of later phases
of the planner (for example, that they do not contain SubLinks). This had
been thought pretty harmless, since we don't intentionally touch those
lists in later phases --- but Andreas Seltenreich found a case in which
adjust_appendrel_attrs() could recurse into a joinaliasvars list and then
die on its assertion that it never sees a SubLink. We considered a couple
of localized fixes to prevent that specific case from looking at the
joinaliasvars lists, but really this seems like a generic hazard for all
expression processing in the planner. Therefore, probably the best answer
is to delete the joinaliasvars lists from the parsetree at the end of
expression preprocessing, so that there are no reachable expressions that
haven't been through preprocessing.
The case Andreas found seems to be harmless in non-Assert builds, and so
far there are no field reports suggesting that there are user-visible
effects in other cases. I considered back-patching this anyway, but
it turns out that Andreas' test doesn't fail at all in 9.4-9.6, because
in those versions adjust_appendrel_attrs contains code (added in commit
842faa714 and removed again in commit 215b43cdc) to process SubLinks
rather than complain about them. Barring discovery of another path by
which unprocessed joinaliasvars lists can cause trouble, the most
prudent compromise seems to be to patch this into v10 but not further.
Patch by me, with thanks to Amit Langote for initial investigation
and review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87r2tvt9f1.fsf@ansel.ydns.eu
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
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
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
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
