All of these are false positives, but in each case a fair amount of
analysis is needed to see that, and it's not too surprising that not all
compilers are smart enough. (In particular, in the logtape.c case, a
compiler lacking the knowledge provided by the Assert would almost surely
complain, so that this warning will be seen in any non-assert build.)
Some of these are of long standing while others are pretty recent,
but it only seems worth fixing them in HEAD.
Jaime Casanova, tweaked a bit by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJGNTeMcYAMJdPAom52dppLMtF-UnEZi0dooj==75OEv1EoBZA@mail.gmail.com
LogicalTapeFreeze() may write out its first block when it is dirty but
not full, and then immediately read the first block back in from its
BufFile as a BLCKSZ-width block. This can only occur in rare cases
where very few tuples were written out, which is currently only
possible with parallel external tuplesorts. To avoid valgrind
complaints, tell it to treat the tail of logtape.c's buffer as
defined.
Commit 9da0cc3528 exposed this problem
but did not create it. LogicalTapeFreeze() has always tended to write
out some amount of garbage bytes, but previously never wrote less than
one block of data in total, so the problem was masked.
Per buildfarm members lousyjack and skink.
Peter Geoghegan, based on a suggestion from Tom Lane and me. Some
comment revisions by me.
To make this work, tuplesort.c and logtape.c must also support
parallelism, so this patch adds that infrastructure and then applies
it to the particular case of parallel btree index builds. Testing
to date shows that this can often be 2-3x faster than a serial
index build.
The model for deciding how many workers to use is fairly primitive
at present, but it's better than not having the feature. We can
refine it as we get more experience.
Peter Geoghegan with some help from Rushabh Lathia. While Heikki
Linnakangas is not an author of this patch, he wrote other patches
without which this feature would not have been possible, and
therefore the release notes should possibly credit him as an author
of this feature. Reviewed by Claudio Freire, Heikki Linnakangas,
Thomas Munro, Tels, Amit Kapila, me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM3SWZQKM=Pzc=CAHzRixKjp2eO5Q0Jg1SoFQqeXFQ647JiwqQ@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=AxWqDoVvGU7dq856S4r6sJAj6DBn7VMtigkB33N5eyg@mail.gmail.com
SharedTuplestore allows multiple participants to write into it and
then read the tuples back from it in parallel. Each reader receives
partial results.
For now it always uses disk files, but other buffering policies and
other kinds of scans (ie each reader receives complete results) may be
useful in future.
The upcoming parallel hash join feature will use this facility.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Peter Geoghegan, Andres Freund, Robert Haas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.com
Commit 8b304b8b72 removed replacement
selection, but left behind this comment text. The optimization to
which the comment refers is not relevant without replacement
selection, because if we had so few tuples as to require only one
tape, we would have just completed the sort in memory.
Peter Geoghegan
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WznqupLA8CMjp+vqzoe0yXu0DYYbQSNZxmgN76tLnAOZ_w@mail.gmail.com
The lower case spellings are C and C++ standard and are used in most
parts of the PostgreSQL sources. The upper case spellings are only used
in some files/modules. So standardize on the standard spellings.
The APIs for ICU, Perl, and Windows define their own TRUE and FALSE, so
those are left as is when using those APIs.
In code comments, we use the lower-case spelling for the C concepts and
keep the upper-case spelling for the SQL concepts.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
At the time replacement_sort_tuples was introduced, there were still
cases where replacement selection sort noticeably outperformed using
quicksort even for the first run. However, those cases seem to have
evaporated as a result of further improvements made since that time
(and perhaps also advances in CPU technology). So remove replacement
selection and the controlling GUC entirely. This makes tuplesort.c
noticeably simpler and probably paves the way for further
optimizations someone might want to do later.
Peter Geoghegan, with review and testing by Tomas Vondra and me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzmmNjG_K0R9nqYwMq3zjyJJK+hCbiZYNGhAy-Zyjs64GQ@mail.gmail.com
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
If the number of tuples in the heap exceeds approximately INT_MAX/2,
this loop's calculation "2*i+1" could overflow, resulting in a crash.
Fix it by using unsigned int rather than int for the relevant local
variables; that shouldn't cost anything extra on any popular hardware.
Per bug #14722 from Sergey Koposov.
Original patch by Sergey Koposov, modified by me per a suggestion
from Heikki Linnakangas to use unsigned int not int64.
Back-patch to 9.4, where tuplesort.c grew the ability to sort as many
as INT_MAX tuples in-memory (commit 263865a48).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170629161637.1478.93109@wrigleys.postgresql.org
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
Add a "copy" argument to make it optional to receive a copy of caller
tuple that is safe to use following a subsequent manipulating of
tuplesort's state. This is a performance optimization. Most existing
tuplesort_gettupleslot() callers are made to opt out of copying.
Existing callers that happen to rely on the validity of tuple memory
beyond subsequent manipulations of the tuplesort request their own
copy.
This brings tuplesort_gettupleslot() in line with
tuplestore_gettupleslot(). In the future, a "copy"
tuplesort_getdatum() argument may be added, that similarly allows
callers to opt out of receiving their own copy of tuple.
In passing, clarify assumptions that callers of other tuplesort fetch
routines may make about tuple memory validity, per gripe from Tom
Lane.
Author: Peter Geoghegan
Discussion: CAM3SWZQWZZ_N=DmmL7tKy_OUjGH_5mN=N=A6h7kHyyDvEhg2DA@mail.gmail.com
Since hash indexes typically have very few overflow pages, adding a
new splitpoint essentially doubles the on-disk size of the index,
which can lead to large and abrupt increases in disk usage (and
perhaps long delays on occasion). To mitigate this problem to some
degree, divide larger splitpoints into four equal phases. This means
that, for example, instead of growing from 4GB to 8GB all at once, a
hash index will now grow from 4GB to 5GB to 6GB to 7GB to 8GB, which
is perhaps still not as smooth as we'd like but certainly an
improvement.
This changes the on-disk format of the metapage, so bump HASH_VERSION
from 2 to 3. This will force a REINDEX of all existing hash indexes,
but that's probably a good idea anyway. First, hash indexes from
pre-10 versions of PostgreSQL could easily be corrupted, and we don't
want to confuse corruption carried over from an older release with any
corruption caused despite the new write-ahead logging in v10. Second,
it will let us remove some backward-compatibility code added by commit
293e24e507.
Mithun Cy, reviewed by Amit Kapila, Jesper Pedersen and me. Regression
test outputs updated by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAD__OuhG6F1gQLCgMQNnMNgoCvOLQZz9zKYJQNYvYmmJoM42gA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYty0jCf-pa+m+vYUJ716+AxM7nv_syvyanyf5O-L_i2A@mail.gmail.com
A QueryEnvironment concept is added, which allows new types of
objects to be passed into queries from parsing on through
execution. At this point, the only thing implemented is a
collection of EphemeralNamedRelation objects -- relations which
can be referenced by name in queries, but do not exist in the
catalogs. The only type of ENR implemented is NamedTuplestore, but
provision is made to add more types fairly easily.
An ENR can carry its own TupleDesc or reference a relation in the
catalogs by relid.
Although these features can be used without SPI, convenience
functions are added to SPI so that ENRs can easily be used by code
run through SPI.
The initial use of all this is going to be transition tables in
AFTER triggers, but that will be added to each PL as a separate
commit.
An incidental effect of this patch is to produce a more informative
error message if an attempt is made to modify the contents of a CTE
from a referencing DML statement. No tests previously covered that
possibility, so one is added.
Kevin Grittner and Thomas Munro
Reviewed by Heikki Linnakangas, David Fetter, and Thomas Munro
with valuable comments and suggestions from many others
The "Simplify tape block format" commit ignored the rule that blocks
returned by ltsGetFreeBlock() must be written out in the same order, at
least in the first write pass. To fix, relax that requirement, by making
ltsWriteBlock() to detect if it's about to create a "hole" in the
underlying BufFile, and fill it with zeros instead.
Reported, analysed, and reviewed by Peter Geoghegan.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZRWdNtkhiG0GyiX_1mUAypiK3dV6-6542pYe2iEL-foTA@mail.gmail.com
No more indirect blocks. The blocks form a linked list instead.
This saves some memory, because we don't need to have a buffer in memory to
hold the indirect block (or blocks). To reflect that, TAPE_BUFFER_OVERHEAD
is reduced from 3 to 1 buffer, which allows using more memory for building
the initial runs.
Reviewed by Peter Geoghegan and Robert Haas.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/34678beb-938e-646e-db9f-a7def5c44ada%40iki.fi
We allegedly allocated all remaining memory for the read buffers of the
sort tapes, but we allocated the merge heap only after that. That means
that the allocation of the merge heap was guaranteed to go over the memory
limit. Fix by allocating the merge heap first. This makes little difference
in practice, because the merge heap is tiny, but let's tidy.
While we're at it, add a safeguard for the case that we are already over
the limit when allocating the read buffers. That shouldn't happen, but
better safe than sorry.
The memory accounting error was reported off-list by Peter Geoghegan.
Have tuplesort_gettupleslot() copy the contents of its current table slot
as needed. This is based on an approach taken by tuplestore_gettupleslot().
In the future, tuplesort_gettupleslot() may also be taught to avoid copying
the tuple where caller can determine that that is safe (the
tuplestore_gettupleslot() interface already offers this option to callers).
Patch by Peter Geoghegan. Fixes bug #14344, reported by Regina Obe.
Report: <20160929035538.20224.39628@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Pass the buffer size as argument to LogicalTapeRewindForRead, rather than
setting it earlier with the separate LogicTapeAssignReadBufferSize call.
This way, the buffer size is set closer to where it's actually used, which
makes the code easier to understand.
This makes the calculation for how much memory to use for the buffers less
precise. We now use the same amount of memory for every tape, rounded down
to the nearest BLCKSZ boundary, instead of using one more block for some
tapes, to get the total up to exact amount of memory available. That should
be OK, merging isn't too sensitive to the exact amount of memory used.
Reviewed by Peter Geoghegan
Discussion: <0f607c4b-df23-353e-bf56-c0389d28495f@iki.fi>
LogicalTapeRewind() should not allocate large read buffer, if the tape
is completely empty. The calling code relies on that, for its
calculation of how much memory to allocate for the read buffers. That
lead to massive overallocation of memory, if maxTapes was high, but
only a few tapes were actually used.
Reported by Tomas Vondra
Discussion: <7303da46-daf7-9c68-3cc1-9f83235cf37e@2ndquadrant.com>
Don't pre-read tuples into SortTuple slots during merge. Instead, use the
memory for larger read buffers in logtape.c. We're doing the same number
of READTUP() calls either way, but managing the pre-read SortTuple slots
is much more complicated. Also, the on-tape representation is more compact
than SortTuples, so we can fit more pre-read tuples into the same amount
of memory this way. And we have better cache-locality, when we use just a
small number of SortTuple slots.
Now that we only hold one tuple from each tape in the SortTuple slots, we
can greatly simplify the "batch memory" management. We now maintain a
small set of fixed-sized slots, to hold the tuples, and fall back to
palloc() for larger tuples. We use this method during all merge phases,
not just the final merge, and also when randomAccess is requested, and
also in the TSS_SORTEDONTAPE case. In other words, it's used whenever we
do an external sort.
Reviewed by Peter Geoghegan and Claudio Freire.
Discussion: <CAM3SWZTpaORV=yQGVCG8Q4axcZ3MvF-05xe39ZvORdU9JcD6hQ@mail.gmail.com>
In external sort's merge phase, we maintain a binary heap holding the next
tuple from each input tape. On each step, the topmost tuple is returned,
and replaced with the next tuple from the same tape. We were doing the
replacement by deleting the top node in one operation, and inserting the
next tuple after that. However, you can do a "replace-top" operation more
efficiently, in one "sift-up". A deletion will always walk the heap from
top to bottom, but in a replacement, we can stop as soon as we find the
right place for the new tuple. This is particularly helpful, if the tapes
are not in completely random order, so that the next tuple from a tape is
likely to land near the top of the heap.
Peter Geoghegan, reviewed by Claudio Freire, with some editing by me.
Discussion: <CAM3SWZRhBhiknTF_=NjDSnNZ11hx=U_SEYwbc5vd=x7M4mMiCw@mail.gmail.com>
Negative availMemLessRefund would be problematic. It's not entirely
clear whether the case can be hit in the code as it stands, but this
seems like good future-proofing in any case. While we're at it,
insist that the value be not merely positive but not tiny, so as to
avoid doing a lot of repalloc work for little gain.
Peter Geoghegan
Discussion: <CAM3SWZRVkuUB68DbAkgw=532gW0f+fofKueAMsY7hVYi68MuYQ@mail.gmail.com>
I found that half a dozen (nearly 5%) of our AllocSetContextCreate calls
had typos in the context-sizing parameters. While none of these led to
especially significant problems, they did create minor inefficiencies,
and it's now clear that expecting people to copy-and-paste those calls
accurately is not a great idea. Let's reduce the risk of future errors
by introducing single macros that encapsulate the common use-cases.
Three such macros are enough to cover all but two special-purpose contexts;
those two calls can be left as-is, I think.
While this patch doesn't in itself improve matters for third-party
extensions, it doesn't break anything for them either, and they can
gradually adopt the simplified notation over time.
In passing, change TopMemoryContext to use the default allocation
parameters. Formerly it could only be extended 8K at a time. That was
probably reasonable when this code was written; but nowadays we create
many more contexts than we did then, so that it's not unusual to have a
couple hundred K in TopMemoryContext, even without considering various
dubious code that sticks other things there. There seems no good reason
not to let it use growing blocks like most other contexts.
Back-patch to 9.6, mostly because that's still close enough to HEAD that
it's easy to do so, and keeping the branches in sync can be expected to
avoid some future back-patching pain. The bugs fixed by these changes
don't seem to be significant enough to justify fixing them further back.
Discussion: <21072.1472321324@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Due to an error in the abbreviated key abort logic, the most recently
processed SortTuple could be incorrectly marked NULL, resulting in an
incorrect final sort order.
In the worst case, this could result in a corrupt btree index, which
would need to be rebuild using REINDEX. However, abbrevation doesn't
abort very often, not all data types use it, and only one tuple would
end up in the wrong place, so the practical impact of this mistake may
be somewhat limited.
Report and patch by Peter Geoghegan.
Otherwise, when we abandon incremental memory accounting and use
batch allocation for the final merge pass, we might crash. This
has been broken since 0011c0091e.
Peter Geoghegan, tested by Noah Misch
Now indexes (but only B-tree for now) can contain "extra" column(s) which
doesn't participate in index structure, they are just stored in leaf
tuples. It allows to use index only scan by using single index instead
of two or more indexes.
Author: Anastasia Lubennikova with minor editorializing by me
Reviewers: David Rowley, Peter Geoghegan, Jeff Janes
We still use replacement selection for the first run of the sort only
and only when the number of tuples is relatively small. Otherwise,
the first run, and subsequent runs in all cases, are produced using
quicksort. This tends to be faster except perhaps for very small
amounts of working memory.
Peter Geoghegan, reviewed by Tomas Vondra, Jeff Janes, Mithun Cy,
Greg Stark, and me.
