A simple UNION ALL gets flattened into an appendrel of subquery
RTEs, but up until now it's been impossible for the appendrel to use
the partial paths for the subqueries, so we can implement the
appendrel as a Parallel Append but only one with non-partial paths
as children.
There are three separate obstacles to removing that limitation.
First, when planning a subquery, propagate any partial paths to the
final_rel so that they are potentially visible to outer query levels
(but not if they have initPlans attached, because that wouldn't be
safe). Second, after planning a subquery, propagate any partial paths
for the final_rel to the subquery RTE in the outer query level in the
same way we do for non-partial paths. Third, teach finalize_plan() to
account for the possibility that the fake parameter we use for rescan
signalling when the plan contains a Gather (Merge) node may be
propagated from an outer query level.
Patch by me, reviewed and tested by Amit Khandekar, Rajkumar
Raghuwanshi, and Ashutosh Bapat. Test cases based on examples by
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa6L9A1nNCk3aTDVZLZ4KkHDn1+tm7mFyFvP+uQPS7bAg@mail.gmail.com
One of the things canonicalize_qual() does is to remove constant-NULL
subexpressions of top-level AND/OR clauses. It does that on the assumption
that what it's given is a top-level WHERE clause, so that NULL can be
treated like FALSE. Although this is documented down inside a subroutine
of canonicalize_qual(), it wasn't mentioned in the documentation of that
function itself, and some callers hadn't gotten that memo.
Notably, commit d007a9505 caused get_relation_constraints() to apply
canonicalize_qual() to CHECK constraints. That allowed constraint
exclusion to misoptimize situations in which a CHECK constraint had a
provably-NULL subclause, as seen in the regression test case added here,
in which a child table that should be scanned is not. (Although this
thinko is ancient, the test case doesn't fail before 9.2, for reasons
I've not bothered to track down in detail. There may be related cases
that do fail before that.)
More recently, commit f0e44751d added an independent bug by applying
canonicalize_qual() to index expressions, which is even sillier since
those might not even be boolean. If they are, though, I think this
could lead to making incorrect index entries for affected index
expressions in v10. I haven't attempted to prove that though.
To fix, add an "is_check" parameter to canonicalize_qual() to specify
whether it should assume WHERE or CHECK semantics, and make it perform
NULL-elimination accordingly. Adjust the callers to apply the right
semantics, or remove the call entirely in cases where it's not known
that the expression has one or the other semantics. I also removed
the call in some cases involving partition expressions, where it should
be a no-op because such expressions should be canonical already ...
and was a no-op, independently of whether it could in principle have
done something, because it was being handed the qual in implicit-AND
format which isn't what it expects. In HEAD, add an Assert to catch
that type of mistake in future.
This represents an API break for external callers of canonicalize_qual().
While that's intentional in HEAD to make such callers think about which
case applies to them, it seems like something we probably wouldn't be
thanked for in released branches. Hence, in released branches, the
extra parameter is added to a new function canonicalize_qual_ext(),
and canonicalize_qual() is a wrapper that retains its old behavior.
Patch by me with suggestions from Dean Rasheed. Back-patch to all
supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/24475.1520635069@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit b08df9cab left things rather poorly documented as far as the
exact semantics of "clause_is_check" mode went. Also, that mode did
not really work correctly for predicate_refuted_by; although given the
lack of specification as to what it should do, as well as the lack
of any actual use-case, that's perhaps not surprising.
Rename "clause_is_check" to "weak" proof mode, and provide specifications
for what it should do. I defined weak refutation as meaning "truth of A
implies non-truth of B", which makes it possible to use the mode in the
part of relation_excluded_by_constraints that checks for mutually
contradictory WHERE clauses. Fix up several places that did things wrong
for that definition. (As far as I can see, these errors would only lead
to failure-to-prove, not incorrect claims of proof, making them not
serious bugs even aside from the fact that v10 contains no use of this
mode. So there seems no need for back-patching.)
In addition, teach predicate_refuted_by_recurse that it can use
predicate_implied_by_recurse after all when processing a strong NOT-clause,
so long as it asks for the correct proof strength. This is an optimization
that could have been included in commit b08df9cab, but wasn't.
Also, simplify and generalize the logic that checks for whether nullness of
the argument of IS [NOT] NULL would force overall nullness of the predicate
or clause. (This results in a change in the partition_prune test's output,
as it is now able to prune an all-nulls partition that it did not recognize
before.)
In passing, in PartConstraintImpliedByRelConstraint, remove bogus
conversion of the constraint list to explicit-AND form and then right back
again; that accomplished nothing except forcing a useless extra level of
recursion inside predicate_implied_by.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5983.1520487191@sss.pgh.pa.us
Since commit 69f4b9c85f168ae006929eec44fc44d569e846b9, the existing
code was no longer assessing the parallel-safety of the real tlist
for each upper rel, but rather the first of possibly several tlists
created by split_pathtarget_at_srfs(). Repair.
Even though this is clearly wrong, it's not clear that it has any
user-visible consequences at the moment, so no back-patch for now. If
we discover later that it does have user-visible consequences, we
might need to back-patch this to v10.
Patch by me, per a report from Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoaob_Strkg4Dcx=VyxnyXtrmkV=ofj=pX7gH9hSre-g0Q@mail.gmail.com
Commit 1804284042e659e7d16904e7bbb0ad546394b6a3 established that single-batch
parallel-aware hash joins could create one large shared hash table using the
combined work_mem budget of all participants. The costing accidentally
assumed that parallel-oblivious hash joins could also do that. The
documentation for initial_cost_hashjoin() also failed to mention the new
argument. Repair.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reported-By: Antonin Houska
Reviewed-By: Antonin Houska
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/12441.1513935950%40localhost
The new column distinguishes normal functions, procedures, aggregates,
and window functions. This replaces the existing columns proisagg and
proiswindow, and replaces the convention that procedures are indicated
by prorettype == 0. Also change prorettype to be VOIDOID for procedures.
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Since 9.5, it's possible that some but not all columns of an index
support returning the indexed value for index-only scans. If the
same indexed column appears in index columns that behave both ways,
check_index_only() supposed that it'd be OK to do an index-only scan
testing that column; but that fails if we have to recheck the indexed
condition on one of the columns that doesn't support this.
In principle we could make this work by remapping the recheck expressions
to pull the value from a column that does support returning the indexed
value. But such cases are so weird and rare that, at least for now,
it doesn't seem worth the trouble. Instead, just teach check_index_only
that a value is returnable only if all the index columns containing it
are returnable, rather than any of them.
Per report from David Pereiro Lagares. Back-patch to 9.5 where the
possibility of this situation appeared.
Kyotaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1516210494.1798.16.camel@nlpgo.com
The previous code considered two tables to have the partition scheme
if the underlying columns had the same collation, but what we
actually need to compare is not the collations associated with the
column but the collation used for partitioning. Fix that.
Robert Haas and Amit Langote
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/0f95f924-0efa-4cf5-eb5f-9a3d1bc3c33d@lab.ntt.co.jp
Commit 3bf05e096b9f8375e640c5d7996aa57efd7f240c sometimes uses the
cheapest_partial_path variable in this function to mean the cheapest
one from the input rel and at other times the cheapest one from the
partially grouped rel, but it never resets it, so we can end up with
bad plans, leading to "ERROR: Aggref found in non-Agg plan node".
Jeevan Chalke, per a report from Andreas Joseph Krogh and a separate
off-list report from Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM2+6=X9kxQoL2ZqZ00E6asBt9z+rfyWbOmhXJ0+8fPAyMZ9Jg@mail.gmail.com
Up until now, we've abused grouped_rel->partial_pathlist as a place to
store partial paths that have been partially aggregate, but that's
really not correct, because a partial path for a relation is supposed
to be one which produces the correct results with the addition of only
a Gather or Gather Merge node, and these paths also require a Finalize
Aggregate step. Instead, add a new partially_group_rel which can hold
either partial paths (which need to be gathered and then have
aggregation finalized) or non-partial paths (which only need to have
aggregation finalized). This allows us to reuse generate_gather_paths
for partially_grouped_rel instead of writing new code, so that this
patch actually basically no net new code while making things cleaner,
simplifying things for pending patches for partition-wise aggregate.
Robert Haas and Jeevan Chalke. The larger patch series of which this
patch is a part was also reviewed and tested by Antonin Houska,
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar, Konstantin Knizhnik,
Pascal Legrand, Rafia Sabih, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobrzFYS3+U8a_BCy3-hOvh5UyJbC18rEcYehxhpw5=ETA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZyQEjdBNuoG9-wC5GQ5GrO4544Myo13dVptvx+uLg9uQ@mail.gmail.com
Given overlapping or partially redundant join clauses, for example
t1 JOIN t2 ON t1.a = t2.x AND t1.b = t2.x
the planner's EquivalenceClass machinery will ordinarily refactor the
clauses as "t1.a = t1.b AND t1.a = t2.x", so that join processing doesn't
see multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass in a list of join
equality clauses. However, if the join is outer, it's incorrect to derive
a restriction clause on the outer side from the join conditions, so the
clause refactoring does not happen and we end up with overlapping join
conditions. The code that attempted to deal with such cases had several
subtle bugs, which could result in "left and right pathkeys do not match in
mergejoin" or "outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses" planner errors,
if the selected join plan type was a mergejoin. (It does not appear that
any actually incorrect plan could have been emitted.)
The core of the problem really was failure to recognize that the outer and
inner relations' pathkeys have different relationships to the mergeclause
list. A join's mergeclause list is constructed by reference to the outer
pathkeys, so it will always be ordered the same as the outer pathkeys, but
this cannot be presumed true for the inner pathkeys. If the inner sides of
the mergeclauses contain multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass
({t2.x} in the above example) then a simplistic rendering of the required
inner sort order is like "ORDER BY t2.x, t2.x", but the pathkey machinery
recognizes that the second sort column is redundant and throws it away.
The mergejoin planning code failed to account for that behavior properly.
One error was to try to generate cut-down versions of the mergeclause list
from cut-down versions of the inner pathkeys in the same way as the initial
construction of the mergeclause list from the outer pathkeys was done; this
could lead to choosing a mergeclause list that fails to match the outer
pathkeys. The other problem was that the pathkey cross-checking code in
create_mergejoin_plan treated the inner and outer pathkey lists
identically, whereas actually the expectations for them must be different.
That led to false "pathkeys do not match" failures in some cases, and in
principle could have led to failure to detect bogus plans in other cases,
though there is no indication that such bogus plans could be generated.
Reported by Alexander Kuzmenkov, who also reviewed this patch. This has
been broken for years (back to around 8.3 according to my testing), so
back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5dad9160-4632-0e47-e120-8e2082000c01@postgrespro.ru
Previously, Append didn't charge anything at all, and MergeAppend
charged only cpu_operator_cost, about half the value used here. This
change might make MergeAppend plans slightly more likely to be chosen
than before, since this commit increases the assumed cost for Append
-- with default values -- by 0.005 per tuple but MergeAppend by only
0.0025 per tuple. Since the comparisons required by MergeAppend are
costed separately, it's not clear why MergeAppend needs to be
otherwise more expensive than Append, so hopefully this is OK.
Prior to partition-wise join, it didn't really matter whether or not
an Append node had any cost of its own, because every plan had to use
the same number of Append or MergeAppend nodes and in the same places.
Only the relative cost of Append vs. MergeAppend made a difference.
Now, however, it is possible to avoid some of the Append nodes using a
partition-wise join, so it's worth making an effort. Pending patches
for partition-wise aggregate care too, because an Append of Aggregate
nodes will incur the Append overhead fewer times than an Aggregate
over an Append. Although in most cases this change will favor the use
of partition-wise techniques, it does the opposite when the join
cardinality is greater than the sum of the input cardinalities. Since
this situation arises in an existing regression test, I [rhaas]
adjusted it to keep the overall plan shape approximately the same.
Jeevan Chalke, per a suggestion from David Rowley. Reviewed by
Ashutosh Bapat. Some changes by me. The larger patch series of which
this patch is a part was also reviewed and tested by Antonin Houska,
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar, Konstantin Knizhnik,
Pascal Legrand, Rafia Sabih, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f9UXdk6ZYyqbJnjFO9a9hyHKGW7B=ZRh-rxy9qxfPA5Gw@mail.gmail.com
The previous code failed to realize that this setting effectively
disables parallelism, and would crash if it decided to attempt
parallelism anyway. Instead, treat it as a disabling condition.
Kyotaro Horiguchi, who also reported the issue. Reviewed by Michael
Paquier and Peter Geoghegan.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20180209.170635.256350357.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
This patch adds the ability to use "RANGE offset PRECEDING/FOLLOWING"
frame boundaries in window functions. We'd punted on that back in the
original patch to add window functions, because it was not clear how to
do it in a reasonably data-type-extensible fashion. That problem is
resolved here by adding the ability for btree operator classes to provide
an "in_range" support function that defines how to add or subtract the
RANGE offset value. Factoring it this way also allows the operator class
to avoid overflow problems near the ends of the datatype's range, if it
wishes to expend effort on that. (In the committed patch, the integer
opclasses handle that issue, but it did not seem worth the trouble to
avoid overflow failures for datetime types.)
The patch includes in_range support for the integer_ops opfamily
(int2/int4/int8) as well as the standard datetime types. Support for
other numeric types has been requested, but that seems like suitable
material for a follow-on patch.
In addition, the patch adds GROUPS mode which counts the offset in
ORDER-BY peer groups rather than rows, and it adds the frame_exclusion
options specified by SQL:2011. As far as I can see, we are now fully
up to spec on window framing options.
Existing behaviors remain unchanged, except that I changed the errcode
for a couple of existing error reports to meet the SQL spec's expectation
that negative "offset" values should be reported as SQLSTATE 22013.
Internally and in relevant parts of the documentation, we now consistently
use the terminology "offset PRECEDING/FOLLOWING" rather than "value
PRECEDING/FOLLOWING", since the term "value" is confusingly vague.
Oliver Ford, reviewed and whacked around some by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGMVOdu9sivPAxbNN0X+q19Sfv9edEPv=HibOJhB14TJv_RCQg@mail.gmail.com
The previous code assumed that we'd always succeed in creating
child-joins for a joinrel for which partition-wise join was considered,
but that's not guaranteed, at least in the case where dummy rels
are involved.
Ashutosh Bapat, with some wordsmithing by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRf8=uyMYYfeTBjWDMs1tR5t--FgOe2vKZPULxxdYQ4RNw@mail.gmail.com
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
create_plan_recurse lacked any stack depth check. This is not per
our normal coding rules, but I'd supposed it was safe because earlier
planner processing is more complex and presumably should eat more
stack. But bug #15033 from Andrew Grossman shows this isn't true,
at least not for queries having the form of a many-thousand-way
INTERSECT stack.
Further testing showed that recurse_set_operations is also capable
of being crashed in this way, since it likewise will recurse to the
bottom of a parsetree before calling any support functions that
might themselves contain any stack checks. However, its stack
consumption is only perhaps a third of create_plan_recurse's.
It's possible that this particular problem with create_plan_recurse can
only manifest in 9.6 and later, since before that we didn't build a Path
tree for set operations. But having seen this example, I now have no
faith in the proposition that create_plan_recurse doesn't need a stack
check, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180127050845.28812.58244@wrigleys.postgresql.org
This is preparatory refactoring to prepare the way for partition-wise
aggregate, which will reuse the new subroutines for child grouping
rels. It also does not seem like a bad idea on general principle,
as the function was getting pretty long.
Jeevan Chalke. The larger patch series of which this patch is a part
was reviewed and tested by Antonin Houska, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi,
Ashutosh Bapat, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar, Konstantin Knizhnik,
Pascal Legrand, and me. Some cosmetic changes by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM2+6=V64_xhstVHie0Rz=KPEQnLJMZt_e314P0jaT_oJ9MR8A@mail.gmail.com
get_relation_info() was too optimistic about opening indexes in
partitioned tables, which would raise errors when any queries were
planned on such tables. Fix by ignoring any indexes of the partitioned
kind.
CLUSTER (and ALTER TABLE CLUSTER ON) had a similar problem. Fix by
disallowing these commands in partitioned tables.
Fallout from 8b08f7d4820f.
If we're inside a lateral subquery, there may be no unparameterized paths
for a particular child relation of an appendrel, in which case we *must*
be able to create similarly-parameterized paths for each other child
relation, else the planner will fail with "could not devise a query plan
for the given query". This means that there are situations where we'd
better be able to reparameterize at least one path for each child.
This calls into question the assumption in reparameterize_path() that
it can just punt if it feels like it. However, the only case that is
known broken right now is where the child is itself an appendrel so that
all its paths are AppendPaths. (I think possibly I disregarded that in
the original coding on the theory that nested appendrels would get folded
together --- but that only happens *after* reparameterize_path(), so it's
not excused from handling a child AppendPath.) Given that this code's been
like this since 9.3 when LATERAL was introduced, it seems likely we'd have
heard of other cases by now if there were a larger problem.
Per report from Elvis Pranskevichus. Back-patch to 9.3.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5981018.zdth1YWmNy@hammer.magicstack.net
When an UPDATE causes a row to no longer match the partition
constraint, try to move it to a different partition where it does
match the partition constraint. In essence, the UPDATE is split into
a DELETE from the old partition and an INSERT into the new one. This
can lead to surprising behavior in concurrency scenarios because
EvalPlanQual rechecks won't work as they normally did; the known
problems are documented. (There is a pending patch to improve the
situation further, but it needs more review.)
Amit Khandekar, reviewed and tested by Amit Langote, David Rowley,
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Dilip Kumar, Amul Sul, Thomas Munro, Álvaro
Herrera, Amit Kapila, and me. A few final revisions by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9do9o2ccQ7j7+tSgiE1REY65XRiMb=yJO3u3QhyP8EEPQ@mail.gmail.com
If a query against an inheritance tree runs concurrently with an ALTER
TABLE that's disinheriting one of the tree members, it's possible to get
a "could not find inherited attribute" error because after obtaining lock
on the removed member, make_inh_translation_list sees that its columns
have attinhcount=0 and decides they aren't the columns it's looking for.
An ideal fix, perhaps, would avoid including such a just-removed member
table in the query at all; but there seems no way to accomplish that
without adding expensive catalog rechecks or creating a likelihood of
deadlocks. Instead, let's just drop the check on attinhcount. In this
way, a query that's included a just-disinherited child will still
succeed, which is not a completely unreasonable behavior.
This problem has existed for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches. Also add an isolation test verifying related behaviors.
Patch by me; the new isolation test is based on Kyotaro Horiguchi's work.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170626.174612.23936762.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
If we flatten a subquery whose target list contains constants or
expressions, when those output columns are used in GROUPING SET columns,
the planner was capable of doing the wrong thing by merging a pulled-up
expression into the surrounding expression during const-simplification.
Then the late processing that attempts to match subexpressions to grouping
sets would fail to match those subexpressions to grouping sets, with the
effect that they'd not go to null when expected.
To fix, wrap such subquery outputs in PlaceHolderVars, ensuring that
they preserve their separate identity throughout the planner's expression
processing. This is a bit of a band-aid, because the wrapper defeats
const-simplification even in places where it would be safe to allow.
But a nicer fix would likely be too invasive to back-patch, and the
consequences of the missed optimizations probably aren't large in most
cases.
Back-patch to 9.5 where grouping sets were introduced.
Heikki Linnakangas, with small mods and better test cases by me;
additional review by Andrew Gierth
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7dbdcf5c-b5a6-ef89-4958-da212fe10176@iki.fi
Commit ab7271677 introduced code that attempts to order the child
scans of a Parallel Append node in a way that will minimize execution
time, based on total cost and startup cost. However, it failed to
think hard about what to do when estimated costs are exactly equal;
a case that's particularly likely to occur when comparing on startup
cost. In such a case the ordering of the child paths would be left
to the whims of qsort, an algorithm that isn't even stable.
We can improve matters by applying the rule used elsewhere in the
planner: if total costs are equal, sort on startup cost, and
vice versa. When both cost estimates are exactly equal, rather
than letting qsort do something unpredictable, sort based on the
child paths' relids, which should typically result in sorting in
inheritance order. (The latter provision requires inventing a
qsort-style comparator for bitmapsets, but maybe we'll have use
for that for other reasons in future.)
This results in a few plan changes in the select_parallel test,
but those all look more reasonable than before, when the actual
underlying cost numbers are taken into account.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4944.1515446989@sss.pgh.pa.us
- Remove unnecessary #include mistakenly added in execnodes.h.
- Fix mistake in comment in choose_next_subplan_for_leader.
- Adjust row estimates in cost_append for a possibly-different
parallel divisor.
- Clamp row estimates in cost_append after operations that may
not produce integers.
Amit Kapila, with cosmetic adjustments by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+qcbeai3coPpRW=GFCzFeLUsuY4T-AKHqMjxpEGZBPQg@mail.gmail.com
Add some infrastructure (mostly macros) to make it easier to write
typical cases for constant-expression simplification. Add simplification
processing for ArrayRef, RowExpr, and ScalarArrayOpExpr node types,
which formerly went unsimplified even if all their inputs were constants.
Also teach it to simplify FieldSelect from a composite constant.
Make use of the new infrastructure to reduce the amount of code needed
for the existing ArrayExpr and ArrayCoerceExpr cases.
One existing test case changes output as a result of the fact that
RowExpr can now be folded to a constant. All the new code is exercised
by existing test cases according to gcov, so I feel no need to add
additional tests.
Tom Lane, reviewed by Dmitry Dolgov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3be3b82c-e29c-b674-2163-bf47d98817b1@iki.fi
Since 9.4, we've allowed the syntax "select union select" and variants
of that. However, the planner wasn't expecting a no-column set operation
and ended up treating the set operation as if it were UNION ALL.
Turns out it's trivial to fix in v10 and later; we just need to be careful
about not generating a Sort node with no sort keys. However, since a weird
corner case like this is never going to be exercised by developers, we'd
better have thorough regression tests if we want to consider it supported.
Per report from Victor Yegorov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGnEbojGJrRSOgJwNGM7JSJZpVAf8xXcVPbVrGdhbVEHZ-BUMw@mail.gmail.com
This patch does three interrelated things:
* Create a new expression execution step type EEOP_PARAM_CALLBACK
and add the infrastructure needed for add-on modules to generate that.
As discussed, the best control mechanism for that seems to be to add
another hook function to ParamListInfo, which will be called by
ExecInitExpr if it's supplied and a PARAM_EXTERN Param is found.
For stand-alone expressions, we add a new entry point to allow the
ParamListInfo to be specified directly, since it can't be retrieved
from the parent plan node's EState.
* Redesign the API for the ParamListInfo paramFetch hook so that the
ParamExternData array can be entirely virtual. This also lets us get rid
of ParamListInfo.paramMask, instead leaving it to the paramFetch hook to
decide which param IDs should be accessible or not. plpgsql_param_fetch
was already doing the identical masking check, so having callers do it too
seemed redundant. While I was at it, I added a "speculative" flag to
paramFetch that the planner can specify as TRUE to avoid unwanted failures.
This solves an ancient problem for plpgsql that it couldn't provide values
of non-DTYPE_VAR variables to the planner for fear of triggering premature
"record not assigned yet" or "field not found" errors during planning.
* Rework plpgsql to get rid of the need for "unshared" parameter lists,
by dint of turning the single ParamListInfo per estate into a nearly
read-only data structure that doesn't instantiate any per-variable data.
Instead, the paramFetch hook controls access to per-variable data and can
make the right decisions on the fly, replacing the cases that we used to
need multiple ParamListInfos for. This might perhaps have been a
performance loss on its own, but by using a paramCompile hook we can
bypass plpgsql_param_fetch entirely during normal query execution.
(It's now only called when, eg, we copy the ParamListInfo into a cursor
portal. copyParamList() or SerializeParamList() effectively instantiate
the virtual parameter array as a simple physical array without a
paramFetch hook, which is what we want in those cases.) This allows
reverting most of commit 6c82d8d1f, though I kept the cosmetic
code-consolidation aspects of that (eg the assign_simple_var function).
Performance testing shows this to be at worst a break-even change,
and it can provide wins ranging up to 20% in test cases involving
accesses to fields of "record" variables. The fact that values of
such variables can now be exposed to the planner might produce wins
in some situations, too, but I've not pursued that angle.
In passing, remove the "parent" pointer from the arguments to
ExecInitExprRec and related functions, instead storing that pointer in a
transient field in ExprState. The ParamListInfo pointer for a stand-alone
expression is handled the same way; we'd otherwise have had to add
yet another recursively-passed-down argument in expression compilation.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/32589.1513706441@sss.pgh.pa.us
Introduce parallel-aware hash joins that appear in EXPLAIN plans as Parallel
Hash Join with Parallel Hash. While hash joins could already appear in
parallel queries, they were previously always parallel-oblivious and had a
partial subplan only on the outer side, meaning that the work of the inner
subplan was duplicated in every worker.
After this commit, the planner will consider using a partial subplan on the
inner side too, using the Parallel Hash node to divide the work over the
available CPU cores and combine its results in shared memory. If the join
needs to be split into multiple batches in order to respect work_mem, then
workers process different batches as much as possible and then work together
on the remaining batches.
The advantages of a parallel-aware hash join over a parallel-oblivious hash
join used in a parallel query are that it:
* avoids wasting memory on duplicated hash tables
* avoids wasting disk space on duplicated batch files
* divides the work of building the hash table over the CPUs
One disadvantage is that there is some communication between the participating
CPUs which might outweigh the benefits of parallelism in the case of small
hash tables. This is avoided by the planner's existing reluctance to supply
partial plans for small scans, but it may be necessary to estimate
synchronization costs in future if that situation changes. Another is that
outer batch 0 must be written to disk if multiple batches are required.
A potential future advantage of parallel-aware hash joins is that right and
full outer joins could be supported, since there is a single set of matched
bits for each hashtable, but that is not yet implemented.
A new GUC enable_parallel_hash is defined to control the feature, defaulting
to on.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Robert Haas
Tested-By: Rafia Sabih, Prabhat Sahu
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
Commit dc02c7bca4dccf7de278cdc6b3325a829e75b252 changed this call
to create_sort_path() to take -1 rather than limit_tuples because,
at that time, there was no way for a Sort beneath a Gather Merge
to become a top-N sort.
Later, commit 3452dc5240da43e833118484e1e9b4894d04431c provided
a way for a Sort beneath a Gather Merge to become a top-N sort,
but failed to revert the previous commit in the process. Do that.
Report and analysis by Jeff Janes; patch by Thomas Munro; review by
Amit Kapila and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=1BWtC34vUroA0Uqjw02MaqdUrW+d6WD85_k8SLyPiKHQ@mail.gmail.com
When we create an Append node, we can spread out the workers over the
subplans instead of piling on to each subplan one at a time, which
should typically be a bit more efficient, both because the startup
cost of any plan executed entirely by one worker is paid only once and
also because of reduced contention. We can also construct Append
plans using a mix of partial and non-partial subplans, which may allow
for parallelism in places that otherwise couldn't support it.
Unfortunately, this patch doesn't handle the important case of
parallelizing UNION ALL by running each branch in a separate worker;
the executor infrastructure is added here, but more planner work is
needed.
Amit Khandekar, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, reviewed and tested by
Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Langote, Rafia Sabih, Amit Kapila, and
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9dy0K_E8r727heqXoBmWZ83HwLFwdcaSSmBQ1+S+vRuUQ@mail.gmail.com
This adds a new object type "procedure" that is similar to a function
but does not have a return type and is invoked by the new CALL statement
instead of SELECT or similar. This implementation is aligned with the
SQL standard and compatible with or similar to other SQL implementations.
This commit adds new commands CALL, CREATE/ALTER/DROP PROCEDURE, as well
as ALTER/DROP ROUTINE that can refer to either a function or a
procedure (or an aggregate function, as an extension to SQL). There is
also support for procedures in various utility commands such as COMMENT
and GRANT, as well as support in pg_dump and psql. Support for defining
procedures is available in all the languages supplied by the core
distribution.
While this commit is mainly syntax sugar around existing functionality,
future features will rely on having procedures as a separate object
type.
Reviewed-by: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Put the unique path in the same context as the owning RelOptInfo, rather
than the toplevel planner context. This is how this function worked
originally, but commit f41803bb39bc2949db200116a609fd242d0ec221
changed it without explanation. mark_dummy_rel adopted the older (or
newer?) technique in commit eca75a12a27d28b972fc269c1c8813cd8eb15441,
which also featured a much better explanation of why it is correct.
So, switch back to that technique here, with the same explanation
given there.
Although this fixes a possible memory leak when GEQO is in use, the
leak is minor and probably nobody cares, so no back-patch.
Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed by Tom Lane and by me
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRcXkHHrXyD9BCvkgGJV4TnHG2SWJ0PhJfrDu3NAcQvh7g@mail.gmail.com
rewriteTargetListUD's processing is dependent on the relkind of the query's
target table. That was fine at the time it was made to act that way, even
for queries on inheritance trees, because all tables in an inheritance tree
would necessarily be plain tables. However, the 9.5 feature addition
allowing some members of an inheritance tree to be foreign tables broke the
assumption that rewriteTargetListUD's output tlist could be applied to all
child tables with nothing more than column-number mapping. This led to
visible failures if foreign child tables had row-level triggers, and would
also break in cases where child tables belonged to FDWs that used methods
other than CTID for row identification.
To fix, delay running rewriteTargetListUD until after the planner has
expanded inheritance, so that it is applied separately to the (already
mapped) tlist for each child table. We can conveniently call it from
preprocess_targetlist. Refactor associated code slightly to avoid the
need to heap_open the target relation multiple times during
preprocess_targetlist. (The APIs remain a bit ugly, particularly around
the point of which steps scribble on parse->targetList and which don't.
But avoiding such scribbling would require a change in FDW callback APIs,
which is more pain than it's worth.)
Also fix ExecModifyTable to ensure that "tupleid" is reset to NULL when
we transition from rows providing a CTID to rows that don't. (That's
really an independent bug, but it manifests in much the same cases.)
Add a regression test checking one manifestation of this problem, which
was that row-level triggers on a foreign child table did not work right.
Back-patch to 9.5 where the problem was introduced.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Ildus Kurbangaliev and Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170514150525.0346ba72@postgrespro.ru
Improve query_is_distinct_for() to accept SRFs in the targetlist when
we can prove distinctness from a DISTINCT clause. In that case the
de-duplication will surely happen after SRF expansion, so the proof
still works. Continue to punt in the case where we'd try to prove
distinctness from GROUP BY (or, in the future, source relations).
To do that, we'd have to determine whether the SRFs were in the
grouping columns or elsewhere in the tlist, and it still doesn't
seem worth the trouble. But this trivial change allows us to
recognize that "SELECT DISTINCT unnest(foo) FROM ..." produces
unique-ified output, which seems worth having.
Also, fix estimate_num_groups() to consider the possibility of SRFs in
the grouping columns. Its failure to do so was masked before v10 because
grouping_planner() scaled up plan rowcount estimates by the estimated SRF
multiplier after performing grouping. That doesn't happen anymore, which
is more correct, but it means we need an adjustment in the estimate for
the number of groups. Failure to do this leads to an underestimate for
the number of output rows of subqueries like "SELECT DISTINCT unnest(foo)"
compared to what 9.6 and earlier estimated, thus breaking plan choices
in some cases.
Per report from Dmitry Shalashov. Back-patch to v10 to avoid degraded
plan choices compared to previous releases.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKPeCUGAeHgoh5O=SvcQxREVkoX7UdeJUMj1F5=aBNvoTa+O8w@mail.gmail.com
If a PARAM_EXEC parameter is used below a Gather (Merge) but the InitPlan
that computes it is attached to or above the Gather (Merge), force the
value to be computed before starting parallelism and pass it down to all
workers. This allows us to use parallelism in cases where it previously
would have had to be rejected as unsafe. We do - in this case - lose the
optimization that the value is only computed if it's actually used. An
alternative strategy would be to have the first worker that needs the value
compute it, but one downside of that approach is that we'd then need to
select a parallel-safe path to compute the parameter value; it couldn't for
example contain a Gather (Merge) node. At some point in the future, we
might want to consider both approaches.
Independent of that consideration, there is a great deal more work that
could be done to make more kinds of PARAM_EXEC parameters parallel-safe.
This infrastructure could be used to allow a Gather (Merge) on the inner
side of a nested loop (although that's not a very appealing plan) and
cases where the InitPlan is attached below the Gather (Merge) could be
addressed as well using various techniques. But this is a good start.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and revised by me. Reviewing and testing from
Kuntal Ghosh, Haribabu Kommi, and Tushar Ahuja.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1LV0Y1AUV4cUCdC+sYOx0Z0-8NAJ2Pd9=UKsbQ5Sr7+JQ@mail.gmail.com
