Commit 05c8482f7f added the implementation of parallel SELECT for
"INSERT INTO ... SELECT ..." which may incur non-negligible overhead in
the additional parallel-safety checks that it performs, even when, in the
end, those checks determine that parallelism can't be used. This is
normally only ever a problem in the case of when the target table has a
large number of partitions.
A new GUC option "enable_parallel_insert" is added, to allow insert in
parallel-mode. The default is on.
In addition to the GUC option, the user may want a mechanism to allow
inserts in parallel-mode with finer granularity at table level. The new
table option "parallel_insert_enabled" allows this. The default is true.
Author: "Hou, Zhijie"
Reviewed-by: Greg Nancarrow, Amit Langote, Takayuki Tsunakawa, Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1K-cW7svLC2D7DHoGHxdAdg3P37BLgebqBOC2ZLc9a6QQ%40mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-cXnB5cnMKqWEp2E2z7Mvcd04iLVmV=qpFJrR3AcrTS3g@mail.gmail.com
Commit 05c8482f7f added special logic related to parallel-safety of FK
triggers. This is a bit of a hack and should have instead been done by
simply setting appropriate proparallel values on those trigger functions
themselves.
Suggested-by: Tom Lane
Author: Greg Nancarrow
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2309260.1615485644@sss.pgh.pa.us
The commit added code which used a relcache TriggerDesc field across
another cache access, which it shouldn't because the relcache doesn't
guarantee it won't get moved.
Diagnosed-by: Tom Lane
Author: Greg Nancarrow
Reviewed-by: Hou Zhijie, Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2309260.1615485644@sss.pgh.pa.us
Initialize other newly added variables in max_parallel_hazard_context via
is_parallel_safe() because we don't check the parallel-safety of target
relations in that function.
Reported-by: Tom Lane as per buildfarm
Author: Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2060179.1615347455@sss.pgh.pa.us
Parallel SELECT can't be utilized for INSERT in the following cases:
- INSERT statement uses the ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE clause
- Target table has a parallel-unsafe: trigger, index expression or
predicate, column default expression or check constraint
- Target table has a parallel-unsafe domain constraint on any column
- Target table is a partitioned table with a parallel-unsafe partition key
expression or support function
The planner is updated to perform additional parallel-safety checks for
the cases listed above, for determining whether it is safe to run INSERT
in parallel-mode with an underlying parallel SELECT. The planner will
consider using parallel SELECT for "INSERT INTO ... SELECT ...", provided
nothing unsafe is found from the additional parallel-safety checks, or
from the existing parallel-safety checks for SELECT.
While checking parallel-safety, we need to check it for all the partitions
on the table which can be costly especially when we decide not to use a
parallel plan. So, in a separate patch, we will introduce a GUC and or a
reloption to enable/disable parallelism for Insert statements.
Prior to entering parallel-mode for the execution of INSERT with parallel
SELECT, a TransactionId is acquired and assigned to the current
transaction state. This is necessary to prevent the INSERT from attempting
to assign the TransactionId whilst in parallel-mode, which is not allowed.
This approach has a disadvantage in that if the underlying SELECT does not
return any rows, then the TransactionId is not used, however that
shouldn't happen in practice in many cases.
Author: Greg Nancarrow, Amit Langote, Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Hou Zhijie, Takayuki Tsunakawa, Antonin Houska, Bharath Rupireddy, Dilip Kumar, Vignesh C, Zhihong Yu, Amit Kapila
Tested-by: Tang, Haiying
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-cXnB5cnMKqWEp2E2z7Mvcd04iLVmV=qpFJrR3AcrTS3g@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-fAdj=nDKMsRhQzndm-O13NY4dL6xGcEvdX5Xvbbi0V7g@mail.gmail.com
This adds a new executor node named TID Range Scan. The query planner
will generate paths for TID Range scans when quals are discovered on base
relations which search for ranges on the table's ctid column. These
ranges may be open at either end. For example, WHERE ctid >= '(10,0)';
will return all tuples on page 10 and over.
To support this, two new optional callback functions have been added to
table AM. scan_set_tidrange is used to set the scan range to just the
given range of TIDs. scan_getnextslot_tidrange fetches the next tuple
in the given range.
For AMs were scanning ranges of TIDs would not make sense, these functions
can be set to NULL in the TableAmRoutine. The query planner won't
generate TID Range Scan Paths in that case.
Author: Edmund Horner, David Rowley
Reviewed-by: David Rowley, Tomas Vondra, Tom Lane, Andres Freund, Zhihong Yu
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMyN-kB-nFTkF=VA_JPwFNo08S0d-Yk0F741S2B7LDmYAi8eyA@mail.gmail.com
It turns out that the calculation of [Merge]AppendPath.partitioned_rels
in allpaths.c is faulty and sometimes omits relevant non-leaf partitions,
allowing an assertion added by commit a929e17e5a to trigger. Rather
than fix that, it seems better to get rid of those fields altogether.
We don't really need the info until create_plan time, and calculating
it once for the selected plan should be cheaper than calculating it
for each append path we consider.
The preceding two commits did away with all use of the partitioned_rels
values; this commit just mechanically removes the fields and the code
that calculated them.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87sg8tqhsl.fsf@aurora.ydns.eu
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJKUy5gCXDSmFs2c=R+VGgn7FiYcLCsEFEuDNNLGfoha=pBE_g@mail.gmail.com
It turns out that the calculation of [Merge]AppendPath.partitioned_rels
in allpaths.c is faulty and sometimes omits relevant non-leaf partitions,
allowing an assertion added by commit a929e17e5a to trigger. Rather
than fix that, it seems better to get rid of those fields altogether.
We don't really need the info until create_plan time, and calculating
it once for the selected plan should be cheaper than calculating it
for each append path we consider.
This patch undoes a couple of very minor uses of the partitioned_rels
values.
createplan.c was testing for nil-ness to optimize away the preparatory
work for make_partition_pruneinfo(). That is worth doing if the check
is nigh free, but it's not worth going to any great lengths to avoid.
create_append_path() was testing for nil-ness as part of deciding how
to set up ParamPathInfo for an AppendPath. I replaced that with a
check for the appendrel's parent rel being partitioned. That's not
quite the same thing but should cover most cases. If we note any
interesting loss of optimizations, we can dumb this down to just
always use the more expensive method when the parent is a baserel.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87sg8tqhsl.fsf@aurora.ydns.eu
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJKUy5gCXDSmFs2c=R+VGgn7FiYcLCsEFEuDNNLGfoha=pBE_g@mail.gmail.com
CREATE PUBLICATION has failed spuriously when applied to a permanent
relation created or rewritten in the current transaction. Make the same
change to another site having the same semantic intent; the second
instance has no user-visible consequences. Back-patch to v13, where
commit c6b92041d3 broke this.
Kyotaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210113.160705.2225256954956139776.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Per buildfarm and local experimentation, bleeding-edge gcc isn't
convinced that the MemSet in reorder_function_arguments() is safe.
Shut it up by adding an explicit check that pronargs isn't negative,
and by changing MemSet to memset. (It appears that either change is
enough to quiet the warning at -O2, but let's do both to be sure.)
Previously, pull_varnos() took the relids of a PlaceHolderVar as being
equal to the relids in its contents, but that fails to account for the
possibility that we have to postpone evaluation of the PHV due to outer
joins. This could result in a malformed plan. The known cases end up
triggering the "failed to assign all NestLoopParams to plan nodes"
sanity check in createplan.c, but other symptoms may be possible.
The right value to use is the join level we actually intend to evaluate
the PHV at. We can get that from the ph_eval_at field of the associated
PlaceHolderInfo. However, there are some places that call pull_varnos()
before the PlaceHolderInfos have been created; in that case, fall back
to the conservative assumption that the PHV will be evaluated at its
syntactic level. (In principle this might result in missing some legal
optimization, but I'm not aware of any cases where it's an issue in
practice.) Things are also a bit ticklish for calls occurring during
deconstruct_jointree(), but AFAICS the ph_eval_at fields should have
reached their final values by the time we need them.
The main problem in making this work is that pull_varnos() has no
way to get at the PlaceHolderInfos. We can fix that easily, if a
bit tediously, in HEAD by passing it the planner "root" pointer.
In the back branches that'd cause an unacceptable API/ABI break for
extensions, so leave the existing entry points alone and add new ones
with the additional parameter. (If an old entry point is called and
encounters a PHV, it'll fall back to using the syntactic level,
again possibly missing some valid optimization.)
Back-patch to v12. The computation is surely also wrong before that,
but it appears that we cannot reach a bad plan thanks to join order
restrictions imposed on the subquery that the PlaceHolderVar came from.
The error only became reachable when commit 4be058fe9 allowed trivial
subqueries to be collapsed out completely, eliminating their join order
restrictions.
Per report from Stephan Springl.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/171041.1610849523@sss.pgh.pa.us
While prepare_sort_from_pathkeys has to be concerned about matching up
a volatile expression to the proper tlist entry, we don't need to do
that in find_em_expr_usable_for_sorting_rel becausee such a sort will
have to be postponed anyway.
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8cK3g5CfLC4w7bs%3DhC0mSksZC%3DH5M8LSchj5e5OxpTAg%40mail.gmail.com
While we do allow SRFs in ORDER BY, scan/join processing should not
consider such cases - such sorts should only happen via final Sort atop
a ProjectSet. So make sure we don't try adding such sorts below Gather
Merge, just like we do for expressions that are volatile and/or not
parallel safe.
Backpatch to PostgreSQL 13, where this code was introduced as part of
the Incremental Sort patch.
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8cK3g5CfLC4w7bs=hC0mSksZC=H5M8LSchj5e5OxpTAg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/295524.1606246314%40sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit ebb7ae839d ensured we ignore pathkeys with volatile expressions
when considering adding a sort below a Gather Merge. Turns out we need
to care about parallel safety of the pathkeys too, otherwise we might
try sorting e.g. on results of a correlated subquery (as demonstrated
by a report from Luis Roberto).
Initial investigation by Tom Lane, patch by James Coleman. Backpatch
to 13, where the code was instroduced (as part of Incremental Sort).
Reported-by: Luis Roberto
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/622580997.37108180.1604080457319.JavaMail.zimbra%40siscobra.com.br
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8cK3g5CfLC4w7bs=hC0mSksZC=H5M8LSchj5e5OxpTAg@mail.gmail.com
generate_useful_gather_paths used to skip unsorted paths (without any
pathkeys), but that is unnecessary - the later code actually can handle
such paths just fine by adding a Sort node. This is clearly a thinko,
preventing construction of useful plans.
Backpatch to 13, where Incremental Sort was introduced.
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8cK3g5CfLC4w7bs=hC0mSksZC=H5M8LSchj5e5OxpTAg@mail.gmail.com
To build Gather Merge path, the input needs to be sufficiently sorted.
Ensuring this is the responsibility of the code constructing the paths,
but create_gather_merge_plan tried to handle unsorted paths by adding
an explicit Sort. In light of the recent issues related to Incremental
Sort, this is rather fragile. Some of the expressions may be volatile
or parallel unsafe, in which case we can't add the Sort here.
We could do more checks and add the Sort in at least some cases, but
it seems cleaner to just error out and make it clear this is a bug in
code constructing those paths.
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8cK3g5CfLC4w7bs%3DhC0mSksZC%3DH5M8LSchj5e5OxpTAg%40mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJGNTeNaxpXgBVcRhJX%2B2vSbq%2BF2kJqGBcvompmpvXb7pq%2BoFA%40mail.gmail.com
Invent a new flag bit HASH_STRINGS to specify C-string hashing, which
was formerly the default; and add assertions insisting that exactly
one of the bits HASH_STRINGS, HASH_BLOBS, and HASH_FUNCTION be set.
This is in hopes of preventing recurrences of the type of oversight
fixed in commit a1b8aa1e4 (i.e., mistakenly omitting HASH_BLOBS).
Also, when HASH_STRINGS is specified, insist that the keysize be
more than 8 bytes. This is a heuristic, but it should catch
accidental use of HASH_STRINGS for integer or pointer keys.
(Nearly all existing use-cases set the keysize to NAMEDATALEN or
more, so there's little reason to think this restriction should
be problematic.)
Tweak hash_create() to insist that the HASH_ELEM flag be set, and
remove the defaults it had for keysize and entrysize. Since those
defaults were undocumented and basically useless, no callers
omitted HASH_ELEM anyway.
Also, remove memset's zeroing the HASHCTL parameter struct from
those callers that had one. This has never been really necessary,
and while it wasn't a bad coding convention it was confusing that
some callers did it and some did not. We might as well save a few
cycles by standardizing on "not".
Also improve the documentation for hash_create().
In passing, improve reinit.c's usage of a hash table by storing
the key as a binary Oid rather than a string; and, since that's
a temporary hash table, allocate it in CurrentMemoryContext for
neatness.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/590625.1607878171@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit c7aba7c14 didn't add this, but after more fooling with the
feature I feel that it'd be useful. To make this possible, refactor
getSubscriptingRoutines() so that the caller is responsible for
throwing any error. (In clauses.c, I just chose to make the
most conservative assumption rather than throwing an error. We don't
expect failures there anyway really, so the code space for an error
message would be a poor investment.)
This patch generalizes the subscripting infrastructure so that any
data type can be subscripted, if it provides a handler function to
define what that means. Traditional variable-length (varlena) arrays
all use array_subscript_handler(), while the existing fixed-length
types that support subscripting use raw_array_subscript_handler().
It's expected that other types that want to use subscripting notation
will define their own handlers. (This patch provides no such new
features, though; it only lays the foundation for them.)
To do this, move the parser's semantic processing of subscripts
(including coercion to whatever data type is required) into a
method callback supplied by the handler. On the execution side,
replace the ExecEvalSubscriptingRef* layer of functions with direct
calls to callback-supplied execution routines. (Thus, essentially
no new run-time overhead should be caused by this patch. Indeed,
there is room to remove some overhead by supplying specialized
execution routines. This patch does a little bit in that line,
but more could be done.)
Additional work is required here and there to remove formerly
hard-wired assumptions about the result type, collation, etc
of a SubscriptingRef expression node; and to remove assumptions
that the subscript values must be integers.
One useful side-effect of this is that we now have a less squishy
mechanism for identifying whether a data type is a "true" array:
instead of wiring in weird rules about typlen, we can look to see
if pg_type.typsubscript == F_ARRAY_SUBSCRIPT_HANDLER. For this
to be bulletproof, we have to forbid user-defined types from using
that handler directly; but there seems no good reason for them to
do so.
This patch also removes assumptions that the number of subscripts
is limited to MAXDIM (6), or indeed has any hard-wired limit.
That limit still applies to types handled by array_subscript_handler
or raw_array_subscript_handler, but to discourage other dependencies
on this constant, I've moved it from c.h to utils/array.h.
Dmitry Dolgov, reviewed at various times by Tom Lane, Arthur Zakirov,
Peter Eisentraut, Pavel Stehule
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+q6zcVDuGBv=M0FqBYX8DPebS3F_0KQ6OVFobGJPM507_SZ_w@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+q6zcVovR+XY4mfk-7oNk-rF91gH0PebnNfuUjuuDsyHjOcVA@mail.gmail.com
array_get_element and array_get_slice qualify as leakproof, since
they will silently return NULL for bogus subscripts. But
array_set_element and array_set_slice throw errors for such cases,
making them clearly not leakproof. contain_leaked_vars was evidently
written with only the former case in mind, as it gave the wrong answer
for assignment SubscriptingRefs (nee ArrayRefs).
This would be a live security bug, were it not that assignment
SubscriptingRefs can only occur in INSERT and UPDATE target lists,
while we only care about leakproofness for qual expressions; so the
wrong answer can't occur in practice. Still, that's a rather shaky
answer for a security-related question; and maybe in future somebody
will want to ask about leakproofness of a tlist. So it seems wise to
fix and even back-patch this correction.
(We would need some change here anyway for the upcoming
generic-subscripting patch, since extensions might make different
tradeoffs about whether to throw errors. Commit 558d77f20 attempted
to lay groundwork for that by asking check_functions_in_node whether a
SubscriptingRef contains leaky functions; but that idea fails now that
the implementation methods of a SubscriptingRef are not SQL-visible
functions that could be marked leakproof or not.)
Back-patch to 9.6. While 9.5 has the same issue, the code's a bit
different. It seems quite unlikely that we'd introduce any actual bug
in the short time 9.5 has left to live, so the work/risk/reward balance
isn't attractive for changing 9.5.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3143742.1607368115@sss.pgh.pa.us
Formerly, extended statistics only handled clauses that were
RestrictInfos. However, the restrictinfo machinery doesn't create
sub-AND RestrictInfos for AND clauses underneath OR clauses.
Therefore teach extended statistics to handle bare AND clauses,
looking for compatible RestrictInfo clauses underneath them.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Tomas Vondra.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCW=J65GUFm50RcPv-iASnS2mTXQbr=CfBvWRVhFLJ_fWA@mail.gmail.com
Commit 4be058fe9 forgot that the append_rel_list would already be
populated at the time we remove useless result RTEs, and it might contain
PlaceHolderVars that need to be adjusted like the ones in the main parse
tree. This could lead to "no relation entry for relid N" failures later
on, when the planner tries to do something with an unadjusted PHV.
Per report from Tom Ellis. Back-patch to v12 where the bug came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20201205173056.GF30712@cloudinit-builder
Formerly we only applied extended statistics to an OR clause as part
of the clauselist_selectivity() code path for an OR clause appearing
in an implicitly-ANDed list of clauses. This meant that it could only
use extended statistics if all sub-clauses of the OR clause were
covered by a single extended statistics object.
Instead, teach clause_selectivity() how to apply extended statistics
to an OR clause by handling its ORed list of sub-clauses in a similar
manner to an implicitly-ANDed list of sub-clauses, but with different
combination rules. This allows one or more extended statistics objects
to be used to estimate all or part of the list of sub-clauses. Any
remaining sub-clauses are then treated as if they are independent.
Additionally, to avoid double-application of extended statistics, this
introduces "extended" versions of clause_selectivity() and
clauselist_selectivity(), which include an option to ignore extended
statistics. This replaces the old clauselist_selectivity_simple()
function which failed to completely ignore extended statistics when
called from the extended statistics code.
A known limitation of the current infrastructure is that an AND clause
under an OR clause is not treated as compatible with extended
statistics (because we don't build RestrictInfos for such sub-AND
clauses). Thus, for example, "(a=1 AND b=1) OR (a=2 AND b=2)" will
currently be treated as two independent AND clauses (each of which may
be estimated using extended statistics), but extended statistics will
not currently be used to account for any possible overlap between
those clauses. Improving that is left as a task for the future.
Original patch by Tomas Vondra, with additional improvements by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200113230008.g67iyk4cs3xbnjju@development
For debugging purposes, Path nodes are supposed to have outfuncs
support, but this was overlooked in the original incremental sort patch.
While at it, clean up a couple other minor oversights, as well as
bizarre choice of return type for create_incremental_sort_path().
(All the existing callers just cast it to "Path *" immediately, so
they don't care, but some future caller might care.)
outfuncs.c fix by Zhijie Hou, the rest by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/324c4d81d8134117972a5b1f6cdf9560@G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local
This can't work if there's no postmaster, and indeed the code got an
assertion failure trying. There should be a check on IsUnderPostmaster
gating the use of parallelism, as the planner has for ordinary
parallel queries.
Commit 40d964ec9 got this right, so follow its model of checking
IsUnderPostmaster at the same place where we check for
max_parallel_maintenance_workers == 0. In general, new code
implementing parallel utility operations should do the same.
Report and patch by Yulin Pei, cosmetically adjusted by me.
Back-patch to v11 where this code came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/HK0PR01MB22747D839F77142D7E76A45DF4F50@HK0PR01MB2274.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com
If a PlaceHolderVar is to be evaluated at a join relation, but
its value is only needed there and not at higher levels, we neglected
to update the joinrel's direct_lateral_relids to include the PHV's
source rel. This causes problems because join_is_legal() then won't
allow joining the joinrel to the PHV's source rel at all, leading
to "failed to build any N-way joins" planner failures.
Per report from Andreas Seltenreich. Back-patch to 9.5
where the problem originated.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87blfgqa4t.fsf@aurora.ydns.eu
Previously this code assumed that all IndexScan nodes supported
mark/restore, which is not true since it depends on optional index AM
support functions. This could lead to errors about missing support
functions in rare edge cases of mergejoins with no sort keys, where an
unordered non-btree index scan was placed on the inner path without a
protecting Materialize node. (Normally, the fact that merge join
requires ordered input would avoid this error.)
Backpatch all the way since this bug is ancient.
Per report from Eugen Konkov on irc.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87o8jn50be.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
When considering Incremental Sort below a Gather Merge, we need to be
a bit more careful when matching pathkeys to EC members. It's not enough
to find a member whose Vars are all in the current relation's target;
volatile expressions in particular need to be contained in the target,
otherwise it's too early to use the pathkey.
Reported-by: Jaime Casanova
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13, where the incremental sort code was added
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJGNTeNaxpXgBVcRhJX%2B2vSbq%2BF2kJqGBcvompmpvXb7pq%2BoFA%40mail.gmail.com
Traditionally, the names of fmgroids.h macros for pg_proc OIDs
have been constructed from the prosrc field. But sometimes the
same C function underlies multiple pg_proc entries, forcing us
to make an arbitrary choice of which OID to reference; the other
entries are then not namable via fmgroids.h. Moreover, we could
not have macros at all for pg_proc entries that aren't for
C-coded functions.
Instead, use the proname field, and append the proargtypes field
(replacing inter-argument spaces with underscores) if proname is
not unique. Special-casing unique entries such as F_OIDEQ removes
the need to change a lot of code. Indeed, I can only find two
places in the tree that need to be adjusted; while this changes
quite a few existing entries in fmgroids.h, few of them are
referenced from C code.
With this patch, all entries in pg_proc.dat have macros in fmgroids.h.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/472274.1604258384@sss.pgh.pa.us
Previously we only tagged on the required information to allow the
executor to perform run-time partition pruning for Append/MergeAppend
nodes belonging to base relations. It was thought that nested
Append/MergeAppend nodes were just about always pulled up into the
top-level Append/MergeAppend and that making the run-time pruning info for
any sub Append/MergeAppend nodes was a waste of time. However, that was
likely badly thought through.
Some examples of cases we're unable to pullup nested Append/MergeAppends
are: 1) Parallel Append nodes with a mix of parallel and non-parallel
paths into a Parallel Append. 2) When planning an ordered Append scan a
sub-partition which is unordered may require a nested MergeAppend path to
ensure sub-partitions don't mix up the order of tuples being fed into the
top-level Append.
Unfortunately, it was not just as simple as removing the lines in
createplan.c which were purposefully not building the run-time pruning
info for anything but RELOPT_BASEREL relations. The code in
add_paths_to_append_rel() was far too sloppy about which partitioned_rels
it included for the Append/MergeAppend paths. The original code there
would always assume accumulate_append_subpath() would pull each sub-Append
and sub-MergeAppend path into the top-level path. While it does not
appear that there were any actual bugs caused by having the additional
partitioned table RT indexes recorded, what it did mean is that later in
planning, when we built the run-time pruning info that we wasted effort
and built PartitionedRelPruneInfos for partitioned tables that we had no
subpaths for the executor to run-time prune.
Here we tighten that up so that partitioned_rels only ever contains the RT
index for partitioned tables which actually have subpaths in the given
Append/MergeAppend. We can now Assert that every PartitionedRelPruneInfo
has a non-empty present_parts. That should allow us to catch any weird
corner cases that have been missed.
In passing, it seems there is no longer a good reason to have the
AppendPath and MergeAppendPath's partitioned_rel fields a List of IntList.
We can simply have a List of Relids instead. This is more compact in
memory and faster to add new members to. We still know which is the root
level partition as these always have a lower relid than their children.
Previously this field was used for more things, but run-time partition
pruning now remains the only user of it and it has no need for a List of
IntLists.
Here we also get rid of the RelOptInfo partitioned_child_rels field. This
is what was previously used to (sometimes incorrectly) set the
Append/MergeAppend path's partitioned_rels field. That was the only usage
of that field, so we can happily just remove it.
I also couldn't resist changing some nearby code to make use of the newly
added for_each_from macro so we can skip the first element in the list
without checking if the current item was the first one on each
iteration.
A bug report from Andreas Kretschmer prompted all this work, however,
after some consideration, I'm not personally classing this as a bug fix.
So no backpatch. In Andreas' test case, it just wasn't that clear that
there was a nested Append since the top-level Append just had a single
sub-path which was pulled up a level, per 8edd0e794.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/flat/CAApHDvqSchs%2BubdybcfFaSPB%2B%2BEA7kqMaoqajtP0GtZvzOOR3g%40mail.gmail.com
It's unsafe to do this at parse time because addition of generated
columns to a table would not invalidate stored rules containing
UPDATEs on the table ... but there might now be dependent generated
columns that were not there when the rule was made. This also fixes
an oversight that rewriteTargetView failed to update extraUpdatedCols
when transforming an UPDATE on an updatable view. (Since the new
calculation is downstream of that, rewriteTargetView doesn't actually
need to do anything; but before, there was a demonstrable bug there.)
In v13 and HEAD, this leads to easily-visible bugs because (since
commit c6679e4fc) we won't recalculate generated columns that aren't
listed in extraUpdatedCols. In v12 this bitmap is mostly just used
for trigger-firing decisions, so you'd only notice a problem if a
trigger cared whether a generated column had been updated.
I'd complained about this back in May, but then forgot about it
until bug #16671 from Michael Paul Killian revived the issue.
Back-patch to v12 where this field was introduced. If existing
stored rules contain any extraUpdatedCols values, they'll be
ignored because the rewriter will overwrite them, so the bug will
be fixed even for existing rules. (But note that if someone were
to update to 13.1 or 12.5, store some rules with UPDATEs on tables
having generated columns, and then downgrade to a prior minor version,
they might observe issues similar to what this patch fixes. That
seems unlikely enough to not be worth going to a lot of effort to fix.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/10206.1588964727@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16671-2fa55851859fb166@postgresql.org
get_foreign_key_join_selectivity() looks for join clauses that equate
the two sides of the FK constraint. However, if we have a query like
"WHERE fktab.a = pktab.a and fktab.a = 1", it won't find any such join
clause, because equivclass.c replaces the given clauses with "fktab.a
= 1 and pktab.a = 1", which can be enforced at the scan level, leaving
nothing to be done for column "a" at the join level.
We can fix that expectation without much trouble, but then a new problem
arises: applying the foreign-key-based selectivity rule produces a
rowcount underestimate, because we're effectively double-counting the
selectivity of the "fktab.a = 1" clause. So we have to cancel that
selectivity out of the estimate.
To fix, refactor process_implied_equality() so that it can pass back the
new RestrictInfo to its callers in equivclass.c, allowing the generated
"fktab.a = 1" clause to be saved in the EquivalenceClass's ec_derives
list. Then it's not much trouble to dig out the relevant RestrictInfo
when we need to adjust an FK selectivity estimate. (While at it, we
can also remove the expensive use of initialize_mergeclause_eclasses()
to set up the new RestrictInfo's left_ec and right_ec pointers.
The equivclass.c code can set those basically for free.)
This seems like clearly a bug fix, but I'm hesitant to back-patch it,
first because there's some API/ABI risk for extensions and second because
we're usually loath to destabilize plan choices in stable branches.
Per report from Sigrid Ehrenreich.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1019549.1603770457@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/AM6PR02MB5287A0ADD936C1FA80973E72AB190@AM6PR02MB5287.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com
There is a handful of places where we called list_delete_ptr() to remove
some element from a List. In many of these places we know, or with very
little additional effort know the index of the ListCell that we need to
remove.
Here we change all of those places to instead either use one of;
list_delete_nth_cell(), foreach_delete_current() or list_delete_last().
Each of these saves from having to iterate over the list to search for the
element to remove by its pointer value.
There are some small performance gains to be had by doing this, but in the
general case, none of these lists are likely to be very large, so the
lookup was probably never that expensive anyway. However, some of the
calls are in fairly hot code paths, e.g process_equivalence(). So any
small gains there are useful.
Author: Zhijie Hou and David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b3517353ec7c4f87aa560678fbb1034b@G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local
Since commit 913bbd88d, check_sql_fn_retval() can either insert type
coercion steps in-line in the Query that produces the SQL function's
results, or generate a new top-level Query to perform the coercions,
if modifying the Query's output in-place wouldn't be safe. However,
it appears that the latter case has never actually worked, because
the code tried to inject the new Query back into the query list it was
passed ... which is not the list that will be used for later processing
when we execute the SQL function "normally" (without inlining it).
So we ended up with no coercion happening at run-time, leading to
wrong results or crashes depending on the datatypes involved.
While the regression tests look like they cover this area well enough,
through a huge bit of bad luck all the test cases that exercise the
separate-Query path were checking either inline-able cases (which
accidentally didn't have the bug) or cases that are no-ops at runtime
(e.g., varchar to text), so that the failure to perform the coercion
wasn't obvious. The fact that the cases that don't work weren't
allowed at all before v13 probably contributed to not noticing the
problem sooner, too.
To fix, get rid of the separate "flat" list of Query nodes and instead
pass the real two-level list that is going to be used later. I chose
to make the same change in check_sql_fn_statements(), although that has
no actual bug, just so that we don't need that data structure at all.
This is an API change, as evidenced by the adjustments needed to
callers outside functions.c. That's a bit scary to be doing in a
released branch, but so far as I can tell from a quick search,
there are no outside callers of these functions (and they are
sufficiently specific to our semantics for SQL-language functions that
it's not apparent why any extension would need to call them). In any
case, v13 already changed the API of check_sql_fn_retval() compared to
prior branches.
Per report from pinker. Back-patch to v13 where this code came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1603050466566-0.post@n3.nabble.com
Given a query with enough joins, it was possible that the query planner,
after multiplying the row estimates with the join selectivity that the
estimated number of rows would exceed the limits of the double data type
and become infinite.
To give an indication on how extreme a case is required to hit this, the
particular example case reported required 379 joins to a table without any
statistics, which resulted in the 1.0/DEFAULT_NUM_DISTINCT being used for
the join selectivity. This eventually caused the row estimates to go
infinite and resulted in an assert failure in initial_cost_mergejoin()
where the infinite row estimated was multiplied by an outerstartsel of 0.0
resulting in NaN. The failing assert verified that NaN <= Inf, which is
false.
To get around this we use clamp_row_est() to cap row estimates at a
maximum of 1e100. This value is thought to be low enough that costs
derived from it would remain within the bounds of what the double type can
represent.
Aside from fixing the failing Assert, this also has the added benefit of
making it so add_path() will still receive proper numerical values as
costs which will allow it to make more sane choices when determining the
cheaper path in extreme cases such as the one described above.
Additionally, we also get rid of the isnan() checks in the join costing
functions. The actual case which originally triggered those checks to be
added in the first place never made it to the mailing lists. It seems
likely that the new code being added to clamp_row_est() will result in
those becoming checks redundant, so just remove them.
The fairly harmless assert failure problem does also exist in the
backbranches, however, a more minimalistic fix will be applied there.
Reported-by: Onder Kalaci
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/DM6PR21MB1211FF360183BCA901B27F04D80B0@DM6PR21MB1211.namprd21.prod.outlook.com
FDWs that can perform an UPDATE/DELETE remotely using the "direct modify"
set of APIs need to access the ResultRelInfo of the target table. That's
currently available in EState.es_result_relation_info, but the next
commit will remove that field.
This commit adds a new resultRelation field in ForeignScan, to store the
target relation's RT index, and the corresponding ResultRelInfo in
ForeignScanState. The FDW's PlanDirectModify callback is expected to set
'resultRelation' along with 'operation'. The core code doesn't need them
for anything, they are for the convenience of FDW's Begin- and
IterateDirectModify callbacks.
Authors: Amit Langote, Etsuro Fujita
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BHiwqGEmiib8FLiHMhKB%2BCH5dRgHSLc5N5wnvc4kym%2BZYpQEQ%40mail.gmail.com
Instead of allocating all the ResultRelInfos upfront in one big array,
allocate them in ExecInitModifyTable(). es_result_relations is now an
array of ResultRelInfo pointers, rather than an array of structs, and it
is indexed by the RT index.
This simplifies things: we get rid of the separate concept of a "result
rel index", and don't need to set it in setrefs.c anymore. This also
allows follow-up optimizations (not included in this commit yet) to skip
initializing ResultRelInfos for target relations that were not needed at
runtime, and removal of the es_result_relation_info pointer.
The EState arrays of regular result rels and root result rels are merged
into one array. Similarly, the resultRelations and rootResultRelations
lists in PlannedStmt are merged into one. It's not actually clear to me
why they were kept separate in the first place, but now that the
es_result_relations array is indexed by RT index, it certainly seems
pointless.
The PlannedStmt->resultRelations list is now only needed for
ExecRelationIsTargetRelation(). One visible effect of this change is that
ExecRelationIsTargetRelation() will now return 'true' also for the
partition root, if a partitioned table is updated. That seems like a good
thing, although the function isn't used in core code, and I don't see any
reason for an FDW to call it on a partition root.
Author: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BHiwqGEmiib8FLiHMhKB%2BCH5dRgHSLc5N5wnvc4kym%2BZYpQEQ%40mail.gmail.com
In the past, we always estimated that a ModifyTable node would emit the
same number of rows as its subpaths. Without a RETURNING clause, the
correct estimate is zero. Fix, in preparation for a proposed parallel
write patch that is sensitive to that number.
A remaining problem is that for RETURNING queries, the estimated width
is based on subpath output rather than the RETURNING tlist.
Reviewed-by: Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-cXnB5cnMKqWEp2E2z7Mvcd04iLVmV%3DqpFJrR3AcrTS3g%40mail.gmail.com
This patch prevents crashes or wrong plans when partition-wise joins
are considered during GEQO planning, as a consequence of the
EquivalenceClass data structures becoming corrupt after a GEQO
context reset.
A remaining problem is that successive GEQO cycles will make multiple
copies of the required EC members, since add_child_join_rel_equivalences
has no idea that such members might exist already. For now we'll just
live with that. The lack of field complaints of crashes suggests that
this is a mighty little-used situation.
Back-patch to v12 where this code was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1683100.1601860653@sss.pgh.pa.us
get_eclass_for_sort_expr() computes expr_relids and nullable_relids
early on, even though they won't be needed unless we make a new
EquivalenceClass, which we often don't. Aside from the probably-minor
inefficiency, there's a memory management problem: these bitmapsets will
be built in the caller's context, leading to dangling pointers if that
is shorter-lived than root->planner_cxt. This would be a live bug if
get_eclass_for_sort_expr() could be called with create_it = true during
GEQO join planning. So far as I can find, the core code never does
that, but it's hard to be sure that no extensions do, especially since
the comments make it clear that that's supposed to be a supported case.
Fix by not computing these values until we've switched into planner_cxt
to build the new EquivalenceClass.
generate_join_implied_equalities() uses inner_rel->relids to look up
relevant eclasses, but it ought to be using nominal_inner_relids.
This is presently harmless because a child RelOptInfo will always have
exactly the same eclass_indexes as its topmost parent; but that might
not be true forever, and anyway it makes the code confusing.
The first of these is old (introduced by me in f3b3b8d5b), so back-patch
to all supported branches. The second only dates to v13, but we might
as well back-patch it to keep the code looking similar across branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1508010.1601832581@sss.pgh.pa.us
We have a dozen or so places that need to iterate over all but the
first cell of a List. Prior to v13 this was typically written as
for_each_cell(lc, lnext(list_head(list)))
Commit 1cff1b95a changed these to
for_each_cell(lc, list, list_second_cell(list))
This patch introduces a new macro for_each_from() which expresses
the start point as a list index, allowing these to be written as
for_each_from(lc, list, 1)
This is marginally more efficient, since ForEachState.i can be
initialized directly instead of backing into it from a ListCell
address. It also seems clearer and less typo-prone.
Some of the remaining uses of for_each_cell() look like they could
profitably be changed to for_each_from(), but here I confined myself
to changing uses of list_second_cell().
Also, fix for_each_cell_setup() and for_both_cell_setup() to
const-ify their arguments; that's a simple oversight in 1cff1b95a.
Back-patch into v13, on the grounds that (1) the const-ification
is a minor bug fix, and (2) it's better for back-patching purposes
if we only have two ways to write these loops rather than three.
In HEAD, also remove list_third_cell() and list_fourth_cell(),
which were also introduced in 1cff1b95a, and are unused as of
cc99baa43. It seems unlikely that any third-party code would
have started to use them already; anyone who has can be directed
to list_nth_cell instead.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvpo1zj9KhEpU2cCRZfSM3Q6XGdhzuAS2v79PH7WJBkYVA@mail.gmail.com
When commit bd3daddaf introduced AlternativeSubPlans, I had some
ambitions towards allowing the choice of subplan to change during
execution. That has not happened, or even been thought about, in the
ensuing twelve years; so it seems like a failed experiment. So let's
rip that out and resolve the choice of subplan at the end of planning
(in setrefs.c) rather than during executor startup. This has a number
of positive benefits:
* Removal of a few hundred lines of executor code, since
AlternativeSubPlans need no longer be supported there.
* Removal of executor-startup overhead (particularly, initialization
of subplans that won't be used).
* Removal of incidental costs of having a larger plan tree, such as
tree-scanning and copying costs in the plancache; not to mention
setrefs.c's own costs of processing the discarded subplans.
* EXPLAIN no longer has to print a weird (and undocumented)
representation of an AlternativeSubPlan choice; it sees only the
subplan actually used. This should mean less confusion for users.
* Since setrefs.c knows which subexpression of a plan node it's
working on at any instant, it's possible to adjust the estimated
number of executions of the subplan based on that. For example,
we should usually estimate more executions of a qual expression
than a targetlist expression. The implementation used here is
pretty simplistic, because we don't want to expend a lot of cycles
on the issue; but it's better than ignoring the point entirely,
as the executor had to.
That last point might possibly result in shifting the choice
between hashed and non-hashed EXISTS subplans in a few cases,
but in general this patch isn't meant to change planner choices.
Since we're doing the resolution so late, it's really impossible
to change any plan choices outside the AlternativeSubPlan itself.
Patch by me; thanks to David Rowley for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1992952.1592785225@sss.pgh.pa.us
