1
0
mirror of https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git synced 2025-07-23 03:21:12 +03:00
Commit Graph

2381 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
04e9678614 Code review for nodeGatherMerge.c.
Comment the fields of GatherMergeState, and organize them a bit more
sensibly.  Comment GMReaderTupleBuffer more usefully too.  Improve
assorted other comments that were obsolete or just not very good English.

Get rid of the use of a GMReaderTupleBuffer for the leader process;
that was confusing, since only the "done" field was used, and that
in a way redundant with need_to_scan_locally.

In gather_merge_init, avoid calling load_tuple_array for
already-known-exhausted workers.  I'm not sure if there's a live bug there,
but the case is unlikely to be well tested due to timing considerations.

Remove some useless code, such as duplicating the tts_isempty test done by
TupIsNull.

Remove useless initialization of ps.qual, replacing that with an assertion
that we have no qual to check.  (If we did, the code would fail to check
it.)

Avoid applying heap_copytuple to a null tuple.  While that fails to crash,
it's confusing and it makes the code less legible not more so IMO.

Propagate a couple of these changes into nodeGather.c, as well.

Back-patch to v10, partly because of the possibility that the
gather_merge_init change is fixing a live bug, but mostly to keep
the branches in sync to ease future bug fixes.
2017-08-30 17:21:08 -04:00
41b0dd987d Separate reinitialization of shared parallel-scan state from ExecReScan.
Previously, the parallel executor logic did reinitialization of shared
state within the ExecReScan code for parallel-aware scan nodes.  This is
problematic, because it means that the ExecReScan call has to occur
synchronously (ie, during the parent Gather node's ReScan call).  That is
swimming very much against the tide so far as the ExecReScan machinery is
concerned; the fact that it works at all today depends on a lot of fragile
assumptions, such as that no plan node between Gather and a parallel-aware
scan node is parameterized.  Another objection is that because ExecReScan
might be called in workers as well as the leader, hacky extra tests are
needed in some places to prevent unwanted shared-state resets.

Hence, let's separate this code into two functions, a ReInitializeDSM
call and the ReScan call proper.  ReInitializeDSM is called only in
the leader and is guaranteed to run before we start new workers.
ReScan is returned to its traditional function of resetting only local
state, which means that ExecReScan's usual habits of delaying or
eliminating child rescan calls are safe again.

As with the preceding commit 7df2c1f8d, it doesn't seem to be necessary
to make these changes in 9.6, which is a good thing because the FDW and
CustomScan APIs are impacted.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
2017-08-30 13:18:16 -04:00
7df2c1f8da Force rescanning of parallel-aware scan nodes below a Gather[Merge].
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
2017-08-30 09:29:55 -04:00
bf11e7ee2e Propagate sort instrumentation from workers back to leader.
Up until now, when parallel query was used, no details about the
sort method or space used by the workers were available; details
were shown only for any sorting done by the leader.  Fix that.

Commit 1177ab1dab forced the test case
added by commit 1f6d515a67 to run
without parallelism; now that we have this infrastructure, allow
that again, with a little tweaking to make it pass with and without
force_parallel_mode.

Robert Haas and Tom Lane

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa2VBZW6S8AAXfhpHczb=Rf6RqQ2br+zJvEgwJ0uoD_tQ@mail.gmail.com
2017-08-29 13:26:33 -04:00
3452dc5240 Push tuple limits through Gather and Gather Merge.
If we only need, say, 10 tuples in total, then we certainly don't need
more than 10 tuples from any single process.  Pushing down the limit
lets workers exit early when possible.  For Gather Merge, there is
an additional benefit: a Sort immediately below the Gather Merge can
be done as a bounded sort if there is an applicable limit.

Robert Haas and Tom Lane

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYa3QKKrLj5rX7UvGqhH73G1Li4B-EKxrmASaca2tFu9Q@mail.gmail.com
2017-08-29 13:16:55 -04:00
3f4c7917b3 Code review for pushing LIMIT through subqueries.
Minor improvements for commit 1f6d515a6.  We do not need the (rather
expensive) test for SRFs in the targetlist, because since v10 any
such SRFs would appear in separate ProjectSet nodes.  Also, make the
code look more like the existing cases by turning it into a simple
recursion --- the argument that there might be some performance
benefit to contorting the code seems unfounded to me, especially since
any good compiler should turn the tail-recursion into iteration anyway.

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CADE5jYLuugnEEUsyW6Q_4mZFYTxHxaVCQmGAsF0yiY8ZDggi-w@mail.gmail.com
2017-08-25 09:05:17 -04:00
1f6d515a67 Push limit through subqueries to underlying sort, where possible.
Douglas Doole, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat and by me.  Minor formatting
change by me.

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CADE5jYLuugnEEUsyW6Q_4mZFYTxHxaVCQmGAsF0yiY8ZDggi-w@mail.gmail.com
2017-08-21 14:19:44 -04:00
2cd7084524 Change tupledesc->attrs[n] to TupleDescAttr(tupledesc, n).
This is a mechanical change in preparation for a later commit that
will change the layout of TupleDesc.  Introducing a macro to abstract
the details of where attributes are stored will allow us to change
that in separate step and revise it in future.

Author: Thomas Munro, editorialized by Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
2017-08-20 11:19:07 -07:00
c4b841ba6a Fix interaction of triggers, partitioning, and EXPLAIN ANALYZE.
Add a new EState member es_leaf_result_relations, so that the trigger
code knows about ResultRelInfos created by tuple routing.  Also make
sure ExplainPrintTriggers knows about partition-related
ResultRelInfos.

Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Amit Langote

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/57163e18-8e56-da83-337a-22f2c0008051@lab.ntt.co.jp
2017-08-18 13:01:05 -04:00
54cde0c4c0 Don't lock tables in RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo.
Instead, lock them in the caller using find_all_inheritors so that
they get locked in the standard order, minimizing deadlock risks.

Also in RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo, avoid opening tables which
are not partitioned; there's no need.

Amit Langote, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat and Amit Khandekar

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/91b36fa1-c197-b72f-ca6e-56c593bae68c@lab.ntt.co.jp
2017-08-17 15:43:09 -04:00
a2b70c89ca Fix ExecReScanGatherMerge.
Not surprisingly, since it'd never ever been tested, ExecReScanGatherMerge
didn't work.  Fix it, and add a regression test case to exercise it.

Amit Kapila

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
2017-08-17 13:49:22 -04:00
1295a77788 Add missing call to ExecReScanGatherMerge.
Amit Kapila

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1KeQWZOoDmDmGMwuqzPW9JhRS+ditQVFdAfGjNmMZzqMQ@mail.gmail.com
2017-08-15 08:06:36 -04:00
21d304dfed Final pgindent + perltidy run for v10. 2017-08-14 17:29:33 -04:00
a1ef920e27 Remove uses of "slave" in replication contexts
This affects mostly code comments, some documentation, and tests.
Official APIs already used "standby".
2017-08-10 22:55:41 -04:00
12a34f59bf Improve ExecModifyTable comments.
Some of these comments wrongly implied that only an AFTER ROW trigger
will cause a 'wholerow' attribute to be present for a foreign table,
but a BEFORE ROW trigger can have the same effect.  Others implied
that it would always be present for a foreign table, but that's not
true either.

Etsuro Fujita and Robert Haas

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/10026bc7-1403-ef85-9e43-c6100c1cc0e3@lab.ntt.co.jp
2017-08-03 12:47:00 -04:00
610e8ebb0f Teach map_partition_varattnos to handle whole-row expressions.
Otherwise, partitioned tables with RETURNING expressions or subject
to a WITH CHECK OPTION do not work properly.

Amit Langote, reviewed by Amit Khandekar and Etsuro Fujita.  A few
comment changes by me.

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/9a39df80-871e-6212-0684-f93c83be4097@lab.ntt.co.jp
2017-08-03 11:21:29 -04:00
f40254a799 Fix typo
Author: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
2017-07-31 17:08:14 -04:00
cc9f08b6b8 Move ExecProcNode from dispatch to function pointer based model.
This allows us to add stack-depth checks the first time an executor
node is called, and skip that overhead on following
calls. Additionally it yields a nice speedup.

While it'd probably have been a good idea to have that check all
along, it has become more important after the new expression
evaluation framework in b8d7f053c5 - there's no stack depth
check in common paths anymore now. We previously relied on
ExecEvalExpr() being executed somewhere.

We should move towards that model for further routines, but as this is
required for v10, it seems better to only do the necessary (which
already is quite large).

Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane
Reported-By: Julien Rouhaud
Discussion:
    https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us
    https://postgr.es/m/b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com
2017-07-30 16:18:21 -07:00
d47cfef711 Move interrupt checking from ExecProcNode() to executor nodes.
In a followup commit ExecProcNode(), and especially the large switch
it contains, will largely be replaced by a function pointer directly
to the correct node. The node functions will then get invoked by a
thin inline function wrapper. To avoid having to include miscadmin.h
in headers - CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() - move the interrupt checks into
the individual executor routines.

While looking through all executor nodes, I noticed a number of
arguably missing interrupt checks, add these too.

Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
    https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us
2017-07-30 16:06:42 -07:00
4132dbec69 Fix partitioning crashes during error reporting.
In various places where we reverse-map a tuple before calling
ExecBuildSlotValueDescription, we neglected to ensure that the
slot descriptor matched the tuple stored in it.

Amit Langote and Amit Khandekar, reviewed by Etsuro Fujita

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9cqpP=WvJj=dv1ONkPWjy8ZuUaOM4_x86i3uQPas=0_jg@mail.gmail.com
2017-07-24 18:08:08 -04:00
278cb43411 Be more consistent about errors for opfamily member lookup failures.
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
2017-07-24 11:23:27 -04:00
c85ec643ff Reverse-convert row types in ExecWithCheckOptions.
Just as we already do in ExecConstraints, and for the same reason:
to improve the quality of error messages.

Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Amit Langote

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/56e0baa8-e458-2bbb-7936-367f7d832e43@lab.ntt.co.jp
2017-07-17 21:56:31 -04:00
f81a91db4d Use a real RT index when setting up partition tuple routing.
Before, we always used a dummy value of 1, but that's not right when
the partitioned table being modified is inside of a WITH clause
rather than part of the main query.

Amit Langote, reported and reviewd by Etsuro Fujita, with a comment
change by me.

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/ee12f648-8907-77b5-afc0-2980bcb0aa37@lab.ntt.co.jp
2017-07-17 21:29:45 -04:00
de2af6e001 Improve comments for execExpr.c's handling of FieldStore subexpressions.
Given this code's general eagerness to use subexpressions' output variables
as temporary workspace, it's not exactly clear that it is safe for
FieldStore to tell a newval subexpression that it can write into the same
variable that is being supplied as a potential input.  Document the chain
of assumptions needed for that to be safe.
2017-07-15 16:57:43 -04:00
e9b64824a0 Improve comments for execExpr.c's isAssignmentIndirectionExpr().
I got confused about why this function doesn't need to recursively
search the expression tree for a CaseTestExpr node.  After figuring
that out, add a comment to save the next person some time.
2017-07-15 14:03:39 -04:00
decb08ebdf Code review for NextValueExpr expression node type.
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
2017-07-14 15:25:43 -04:00
c46c0e5202 Fix transition tables for wCTEs.
The original coding didn't handle this case properly; each separate
DML substatement needs its own set of transitions.

Patch by Thomas Munro

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAL9smLCDQ%3D2o024rBgtD4WihzX8B3C6u_oSQ2K3%2BR5grJrV0bg%40mail.gmail.com
2017-06-28 18:59:01 +01:00
501ed02cf6 Fix transition tables for partition/inheritance.
We disallow row-level triggers with transition tables on child tables.
Transition tables for triggers on the parent table contain only those
columns present in the parent.  (We can't mix tuple formats in a
single transition table.)

Patch by Thomas Munro

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BTgmoZzTBBAsEUh4MazAN7ga%3D8SsMC-Knp-6cetts9yNZUCcg%40mail.gmail.com
2017-06-28 18:55:03 +01:00
08859bb5c2 Fix replication with replica identity full
The comparison with the target rows on the subscriber side was done with
datumIsEqual(), which can have false negatives.  For instance, it didn't
work reliably for text columns.  So use the equality operator provided
by the type cache instead.

Also add more user documentation about replica identity requirements.

Reported-by: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
2017-06-23 15:40:17 -04:00
382ceffdf7 Phase 3 of pgindent updates.
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
2017-06-21 15:35:54 -04:00
c7b8998ebb Phase 2 of pgindent updates.
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
2017-06-21 15:19:25 -04:00
e3860ffa4d Initial pgindent run with pg_bsd_indent version 2.0.
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
2017-06-21 14:39:04 -04:00
ba1f017069 Fix typo in comment.
Etsuro Fujita
2017-06-21 11:55:07 +03:00
0436f6bde8 Disallow set-returning functions inside CASE or COALESCE.
When we reimplemented SRFs in commit 69f4b9c85, our initial choice was
to allow the behavior to vary from historical practice in cases where a
SRF call appeared within a conditional-execution construct (currently,
only CASE or COALESCE).  But that was controversial to begin with, and
subsequent discussion has resulted in a consensus that it's better to
throw an error instead of executing the query differently from before,
so long as we can provide a reasonably clear error message and a way to
rewrite the query.

Hence, add a parser mechanism to allow detection of such cases during
parse analysis.  The mechanism just requires storing, in the ParseState,
a pointer to the set-returning FuncExpr or OpExpr most recently emitted
by parse analysis.  Then the parsing functions for CASE and COALESCE can
detect the presence of a SRF in their arguments by noting whether this
pointer changes while analyzing their arguments.  Furthermore, if it does,
it provides a suitable error cursor location for the complaint.  (This
means that if there's more than one SRF in the arguments, the error will
point at the last one to be analyzed not the first.  While connoisseurs of
parsing behavior might find that odd, it's unlikely the average user would
ever notice.)

While at it, we can also provide more specific error messages than before
about some pre-existing restrictions, such as no-SRFs-within-aggregates.
Also, reject at parse time cases where a NULLIF or IS DISTINCT FROM
construct would need to return a set.  We've never supported that, but the
restriction is depended on in more subtle ways now, so it seems wise to
detect it at the start.

Also, provide some documentation about how to rewrite a SRF-within-CASE
query using a custom wrapper SRF.

It turns out that the information_schema.user_mapping_options view
contained an instance of exactly the behavior we're now forbidding; but
rewriting it makes it more clear and safer too.

initdb forced because of user_mapping_options change.

Patch by me, with error message suggestions from Alvaro Herrera and
Andres Freund, pursuant to a complaint from Regina Obe.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/000001d2d5de$d8d66170$8a832450$@pcorp.us
2017-06-13 23:46:39 -04:00
651902deb1 Re-run pgindent.
This is just to have a clean base state for testing of Piotr Stefaniak's
latest version of FreeBSD indent.  I fixed up a couple of places where
pgindent would have changed format not-nicely.  perltidy not included.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/VI1PR03MB119959F4B65F000CA7CD9F6BF2CC0@VI1PR03MB1199.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
2017-06-13 13:05:59 -04:00
78a030a441 Fix confusion about number of subplans in partitioned INSERT setup.
ExecInitModifyTable() thought there was a plan per partition, but no,
there's only one.  The problem had escaped detection so far because there
would only be visible misbehavior if there were a SubPlan (not an InitPlan)
in the quals being duplicated for each partition.  However, valgrind
detected a bogus memory access in test cases added by commit 4f7a95be2,
and investigation of that led to discovery of the bug.  The additional
test case added here crashes without the patch.

Patch by Amit Langote, test case by me.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/10974.1497227727@sss.pgh.pa.us
2017-06-12 23:29:53 -04:00
15ce775faa Prevent BEFORE triggers from violating partitioning constraints.
Since tuple-routing implicitly checks the partitioning constraints
at least for the levels of the partitioning hierarchy it traverses,
there's normally no need to revalidate the partitioning constraint
after performing tuple routing.  However, if there's a BEFORE trigger
on the target partition, it could modify the tuple, causing the
partitioning constraint to be violated.  Catch that case.

Also, instead of checking the root table's partition constraint after
tuple-routing, check it beforehand.  Otherwise, the rules for when
the partitioning constraint gets checked get too complicated, because
you sometimes have to check part of the constraint but not all of it.
This effectively reverts commit 39162b2030
in favor of a different approach altogether.

Report by me.  Initial debugging by Jeevan Ladhe.  Patch by Amit
Langote, reviewed by me.

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa9DTgeVOqopieV8d1QRpddmP65aCdxyjdYDoEO5pS5KA@mail.gmail.com
2017-06-07 12:50:45 -04:00
d466335064 Don't be so trusting that shm_toc_lookup() will always succeed.
Given the possibility of race conditions and so on, it seems entirely
unsafe to just assume that shm_toc_lookup() always finds the key it's
looking for --- but that was exactly what all but one call site were
doing.  To fix, add a "bool noError" argument, similarly to what we
have in many other functions, and throw an error on an unexpected
lookup failure.  Remove now-redundant Asserts that a rather random
subset of call sites had.

I doubt this will throw any light on buildfarm member lorikeet's
recent failures, because if an unnoticed lookup failure were involved,
you'd kind of expect a null-pointer-dereference crash rather than the
observed symptom.  But you never know ... and this is better coding
practice even if it never catches anything.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9697.1496675981@sss.pgh.pa.us
2017-06-05 12:05:42 -04:00
917d91285f Fix typo in comment
Masahiko Sawada
2017-05-29 16:29:19 +02:00
a6fd7b7a5f Post-PG 10 beta1 pgindent run
perltidy run not included.
2017-05-17 16:31:56 -04:00
944dc0f9ce Check relkind of tables in CREATE/ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
We used to only check for a supported relkind on the subscriber during
replication, which is needed to ensure that the setup is valid and we
don't crash.  But it's also useful to tell the user immediately when
CREATE or ALTER SUBSCRIPTION is executed that the relation being added
to the subscription is not of a supported relkind.

Author: Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>
Reported-by: tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com>
2017-05-16 22:57:16 -04:00
c079673dcb Preventive maintenance in advance of pgindent run.
Reformat various places in which pgindent will make a mess, and
fix a few small violations of coding style that I happened to notice
while perusing the diffs from a pgindent dry run.

There is one actual bug fix here: the need-to-enlarge-the-buffer code
path in icu_convert_case was obviously broken.  Perhaps it's unreachable
in our usage?  Or maybe this is just sadly undertested.
2017-05-16 20:36:35 -04:00
59f40566ca Fix relcache leak when row triggers on partitions are fired by COPY.
Thomas Munro, reviewed by Amit Langote

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=15Jss-yhFApuKzxcoCuFnb8TR8iQiWMjG=CLYPx48QLw@mail.gmail.com
2017-05-16 12:46:32 -04:00
9aab83fc50 Redesign get_attstatsslot()/free_attstatsslot() for more safety and speed.
The mess cleaned up in commit da0759600 is clear evidence that it's a
bug hazard to expect the caller of get_attstatsslot()/free_attstatsslot()
to provide the correct type OID for the array elements in the slot.
Moreover, we weren't even getting any performance benefit from that,
since get_attstatsslot() was extracting the real type OID from the array
anyway.  So we ought to get rid of that requirement; indeed, it would
make more sense for get_attstatsslot() to pass back the type OID it found,
in case the caller isn't sure what to expect, which is likely in binary-
compatible-operator cases.

Another problem with the current implementation is that if the stats array
element type is pass-by-reference, we incur a palloc/memcpy/pfree cycle
for each element.  That seemed acceptable when the code was written because
we were targeting O(10) array sizes --- but these days, stats arrays are
almost always bigger than that, sometimes much bigger.  We can save a
significant number of cycles by doing one palloc/memcpy/pfree of the whole
array.  Indeed, in the now-probably-common case where the array is toasted,
that happens anyway so this method is basically free.  (Note: although the
catcache code will inline any out-of-line toasted values, it doesn't
decompress them.  At the other end of the size range, it doesn't expand
short-header datums either.  In either case, DatumGetArrayTypeP would have
to make a copy.  We do end up using an extra array copy step if the element
type is pass-by-value and the array length is neither small enough for a
short header nor large enough to have suffered compression.  But that
seems like a very acceptable price for winning in pass-by-ref cases.)

Hence, redesign to take these insights into account.  While at it,
convert to an API in which we fill a struct rather than passing a bunch
of pointers to individual output arguments.  That will make it less
painful if we ever want further expansion of what get_attstatsslot can
pass back.

It's certainly arguable that this is new development and not something to
push post-feature-freeze.  However, I view it as primarily bug-proofing
and therefore something that's better to have sooner not later.  Since
we aren't quite at beta phase yet, let's put it in.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16364.1494520862@sss.pgh.pa.us
2017-05-13 15:14:39 -04:00
df1a4eba94 Fix typos in comments.
Etsuro Fujita

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/968d99bf-0fa8-085b-f0a1-a379f8d661ff@lab.ntt.co.jp
2017-05-09 23:40:08 -04:00
304007d9f1 Pass EXEC_FLAG_REWIND when initializing a tuplestore scan.
Since a rescan is possible, we must be able to rewind.

Thomas Munro, per a report from Prabhat Sabu

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2=Uv5fm=exqL+ygBxaO+-tgmC=o+63H4zYAXi9HtXf1w@mail.gmail.com
2017-05-09 23:13:21 -04:00
e180c8aa8c Fire per-statement triggers on partitioned tables.
Even though no actual tuples are ever inserted into a partitioned
table (the actual tuples are in the partitions, not the partitioned
table itself), we still need to have a ResultRelInfo for the
partitioned table, or per-statement triggers won't get fired.

Amit Langote, per a report from Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.  Reviewed by me.

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6%3DwYospCRY2J4XEFuVy0L41S%3Dfic7rmkbsU-GXhhSbmBg%40mail.gmail.com
2017-05-01 08:23:01 -04:00
e240a65c7d Provide an error cursor for "can't call an SRF here" errors.
Since it appears that v10 is going to move the goalposts by some amount
in terms of where you can and can't invoke set-returning functions,
arrange for the executor's "set-valued function called in context that
cannot accept a set" errors to include a syntax position if possible,
pointing to the specific SRF that can't be called where it's located.

The main bit of infrastructure needed for this is to make the query source
text accessible in the executor; but it turns out that commit 4c728f382
already did that.  We just need a new function executor_errposition()
modeled on parser_errposition(), and we're ready to rock.

While experimenting with this, I noted that the error position wasn't
properly reported if it occurred in a plpgsql FOR-over-query loop,
which turned out to be because SPI_cursor_open_internal wasn't providing
an error context callback during PortalStart.  Fix that.

There's a whole lot more that could be done with this infrastructure
now that it's there, but this is not the right time in the development
cycle for that sort of work.  Hence, resist the temptation to plaster
executor_errposition() calls everywhere ... for the moment.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5263.1492471571@sss.pgh.pa.us
2017-04-18 13:21:08 -04:00
32470825d3 Avoid passing function pointers across process boundaries.
We'd already recognized that we can't pass function pointers across process
boundaries for functions in loadable modules, since a shared library could
get loaded at different addresses in different processes.  But actually the
practice doesn't work for functions in the core backend either, if we're
using EXEC_BACKEND.  This is the cause of recent failures on buildfarm
member culicidae.  Switch to passing a string function name in all cases.

Something like this needs to be back-patched into 9.6, but let's see
if the buildfarm likes it first.

Petr Jelinek, with a bunch of basically-cosmetic adjustments by me

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/548f9c1d-eafa-e3fa-9da8-f0cc2f654e60@2ndquadrant.com
2017-04-14 23:50:16 -04:00
674677c705 Remove trailing spaces in some output
Author: Alexander Law <exclusion@gmail.com>
2017-04-13 23:15:52 -04:00