WindowAgg will potentially store large numbers of input rows into
tuplestores to allow access to other rows in the frame. If the input
is coming via an explicit Sort node, then unneeded columns will
already have been discarded (since Sort requests a small tlist); but
there are idioms like COUNT(*) OVER () that result in the input not
being sorted at all, and cases where the input is being sorted by some
means other than a Sort; if we don't request a small tlist, then
WindowAgg's storage requirement is inflated by the unneeded columns.
Backpatch back to 9.6, where the current tlist handling was added.
(Prior to that, WindowAgg would always use a small tlist.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87a7ator8n.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
d4c3a156c added code to remove columns that were not part of a table's
PRIMARY KEY constraint from the GROUP BY clause when all the primary key
columns were present in the group by. This is fine to do since we know
that there will only be one row per group coming from this relation.
However, the logic failed to consider inheritance parent relations. These
can have child relations without a primary key, but even if they did, they
could duplicate one of the parent's rows or one from another child
relation. In this case, those additional GROUP BY columns are required.
Fix this by disabling the optimization for inheritance parent tables.
In v11 and beyond, partitioned tables are fine since partitions cannot
overlap and before v11 partitioned tables could not have a primary key.
Reported-by: Manuel Rigger
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+u7OA7VLKf_vEr6kLF3MnWSA9LToJYncgpNX2tQ-oWzYCBQAw@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6
The logic in reorder_grouping_sets to order grouping set elements to
match a pre-specified sort ordering was defective, resulting in
unnecessary sort nodes (though the query output would still be
correct). Repair, simplifying the code a little, and add a test.
Per report from Richard Guo, though I didn't use their patch. Original
bug seems to have been my fault.
Backpatch back to 9.5 where grouping sets were introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAN_9JTzyjGcUjiBHxLsgqfk7PkdLGXiM=pwM+=ph2LsWw0WO1A@mail.gmail.com
WHERE EXISTS (...) queries cannot be executed by Parallel Hash Join
with jointype JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER, because there is no way to make a
partial plan totally unique. The consequence of allowing such plans
was duplicate results from some EXISTS queries.
Back-patch to 11. Bug #15857.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Reported-by: Vladimir Kriukov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15857-d1ba2a64bce0795e%40postgresql.org
create_merge_append_plan failed to honor the CP_EXACT_TLIST flag:
it would generate the expected targetlist but then it felt free to
add resjunk sort targets to it. This demonstrably leads to assertion
failures in v11 and HEAD, and it's probably just accidental that we
don't see the same in older branches. I've not looked into whether
there would be any real-world consequences in non-assert builds.
In HEAD, create_append_plan has sprouted the same problem, so fix
that too (although we do not have any test cases that seem able to
reach that bug). This is an oversight in commit 3fc6e2d7f which
invented the CP_EXACT_TLIST flag, so back-patch to 9.6 where that
came in.
convert_subquery_pathkeys would create pathkeys for subquery output
values if they match any EquivalenceClass known in the outer query
and are available in the subquery's syntactic targetlist. However,
the second part of that condition is wrong, because such values might
not appear in the subquery relation's reltarget list, which would
mean that they couldn't be accessed above the level of the subquery
scan. We must check that they appear in the reltarget list, instead.
This can lead to dropping knowledge about the subquery's sort
ordering, but I believe it's okay, because any sort key that the
outer query actually has any interest in would appear in the
reltarget list.
This second issue is of very long standing, but right now there's no
evidence that it causes observable problems before 9.6, so I refrained
from back-patching further than that. We can revisit that choice if
somebody finds a way to make it cause problems in older branches.
(Developing useful test cases for these issues is really problematic;
fixing convert_subquery_pathkeys removes the only known way to exhibit
the create_merge_append_plan bug, and neither of the test cases added
by this patch causes a problem in all branches, even when considering
the issues separately.)
The second issue explains bug #15795 from Suresh Kumar R ("could not
find pathkey item to sort" with nested DISTINCT queries). I stumbled
across the first issue while investigating that.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15795-fadb56c8e44ee73c@postgresql.org
Project style is to check the success of SearchSysCacheN and friends
by applying HeapTupleIsValid to the result. A tiny minority of calls
creatively did it differently. Bring them into line with the rest.
This is just cosmetic, since HeapTupleIsValid is indeed just a null
check at the moment ... but that may not be true forever, and in any
case it puts a mental burden on readers who may wonder why these
call sites are not like the rest.
Back-patch to v11 just to keep the branches in sync. (The bulk of these
errors seem to have originated in v11 or v12, though a few are old.)
Per searching to see if anyplace else had made the same error
repaired in 62148c352.
The interaction of these parameters was a bit confused/confusing,
and in fact v11 entirely misses the opportunity to apply partition
constraints when a partition is accessed directly (rather than
indirectly from its parent).
In HEAD, establish the principle that enable_partition_pruning controls
partition pruning and nothing else. When accessing a partition via its
parent, we do partition pruning (if enabled by enable_partition_pruning)
and then there is no need to consider partition constraints in the
constraint_exclusion logic. When accessing a partition directly, its
partition constraints are applied by the constraint_exclusion logic,
only if constraint_exclusion = on.
In v11, we can't have such a clean division of these GUCs' effects,
partly because we don't want to break compatibility too much in a
released branch, and partly because the clean coding requires
inheritance_planner to have applied partition pruning to a partitioned
target table, which it doesn't in v11. However, we can tweak things
enough to cover the missed case, which seems like a good idea since
it's potentially a performance regression from v10. This patch keeps
v11's previous behavior in which enable_partition_pruning overrides
constraint_exclusion for an inherited target table, though.
In HEAD, also teach relation_excluded_by_constraints that it's okay to use
inheritable constraints when trying to prune a traditional inheritance
tree. This might not be thought worthy of effort given that that feature
is semi-deprecated now, but we have enough infrastructure that it only
takes a couple more lines of code to do it correctly.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9813f079-f16b-61c8-9ab7-4363cab28d80@lab.ntt.co.jp
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/29069.1555970894@sss.pgh.pa.us
join_is_legal() needs to reject forming certain outer joins in cases
where that would lead the planner down a blind alley. However, it
mistakenly supposed that the way to handle full joins was to treat them
as applying the same constraints as for left joins, only to both sides.
That doesn't work, as shown in bug #15741 from Anthony Skorski: given
a lateral reference out of a join that's fully enclosed by a full join,
the code would fail to believe that any join ordering is legal, resulting
in errors like "failed to build any N-way joins".
However, we don't really need to consider full joins at all for this
purpose, because we effectively force them to be evaluated in syntactic
order, and that order is always legal for lateral references. Hence,
get rid of this broken logic for full joins and just ignore them instead.
This seems to have been an oversight in commit 7e19db0c0.
Back-patch to all supported branches, as that was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15741-276f1f464b3f40eb@postgresql.org
Before those commits, partitioning-related code in the executor could
assume that ModifyTableState.resultRelInfo[] contains only leaf partitions.
However, now a fully-pruned update results in a dummy ModifyTable that
references the root partitioned table, and that breaks some stuff.
In v11, this led to an assertion or core dump in the tuple routing code.
Fix by disabling tuple routing, since we don't need that anyway.
(I chose to do that in HEAD as well for safety, even though the problem
doesn't manifest in HEAD as it stands.)
In v10, this confused ExecInitModifyTable's decision about whether it
needed to close the root table. But we can get rid of that altogether
by being smarter about where to find the root table.
Note that since the referenced commits haven't shipped yet, this
isn't fixing any bug the field has seen.
Amit Langote, per a report from me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20710.1554582479@sss.pgh.pa.us
While trying to plan a partitionwise join, we may be faced with cases
where one or both input partitions for a particular segment of the join
have been pruned away. In HEAD and v11, this is problematic because
earlier processing didn't bother to make a pruned RelOptInfo fully
valid. With an upcoming patch to make partition pruning more efficient,
this'll be even more problematic because said RelOptInfo won't exist at
all.
The existing code attempts to deal with this by retroactively making the
RelOptInfo fully valid, but that causes crashes under GEQO because join
planning is done in a short-lived memory context. In v11 we could
probably have fixed this by switching to the planner's main context
while fixing up the RelOptInfo, but that idea doesn't scale well to the
upcoming patch. It would be better not to mess with the base-relation
data structures during join planning, anyway --- that's just a recipe
for order-of-operations bugs.
In many cases, though, we don't actually need the child RelOptInfo,
because if the input is certainly empty then the join segment's result
is certainly empty, so we can skip making a join plan altogether. (The
existing code ultimately arrives at the same conclusion, but only after
doing a lot more work.) This approach works except when the pruned-away
partition is on the nullable side of a LEFT, ANTI, or FULL join, and the
other side isn't pruned. But in those cases the existing code leaves a
lot to be desired anyway --- the correct output is just the result of
the unpruned side of the join, but we were emitting a useless outer join
against a dummy Result. Pending somebody writing code to handle that
more nicely, let's just abandon the partitionwise-join optimization in
such cases.
When the modified code skips making a join plan, it doesn't make a
join RelOptInfo either; this requires some upper-level code to
cope with nulls in part_rels[] arrays. We would have had to have
that anyway after the upcoming patch.
Back-patch to v11 since the crash is demonstrable there.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8305.1553884377@sss.pgh.pa.us
The assertions added by commits 34ea1ab7f et al found another problem:
set_dummy_rel_pathlist and mark_dummy_rel were failing to label
the dummy paths they create with the correct outer_relids, in case
the relation is necessarily parameterized due to having lateral
references in its tlist. It's likely that this has no user-visible
consequences in production builds, at the moment; but still an assertion
failure is a bad thing, so back-patch the fix.
Per bug #15694 from Roman Zharkov (via Alexander Lakhin)
and an independent report by Tushar Ahuja.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15694-74f2ca97e7044f7f@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7d72ab20-c725-3ce2-f99d-4e64dd8a0de6@enterprisedb.com
In commit 960df2a971 ("Correctly assess parallel-safety of tlists when
SRFs are used."), the testing of scan/join target was done incorrectly,
which caused a plan-quality problem. Backpatch through to v11 where
the aforementioned commit went in, since this is a regression from v10.
Author: Etsuro Fujita
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5C75303E.8020303@lab.ntt.co.jp
When we introduced separate ProjectSetPath nodes for application of
set-returning functions in v10, we inadvertently broke some cases where
we're supposed to recognize that the result of a subquery is known to be
empty (contain zero rows). That's because IS_DUMMY_REL was just looking
for a childless AppendPath without allowing for a ProjectSetPath being
possibly stuck on top. In itself, this didn't do anything much worse
than produce slightly worse plans for some corner cases.
Then in v11, commit 11cf92f6e rearranged things to allow the scan/join
targetlist to be applied directly to partial paths before they get
gathered. But it inserted a short-circuit path for dummy relations
that was a little too short: it failed to insert a ProjectSetPath node
at all for a targetlist containing set-returning functions, resulting in
bogus "set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set"
errors, as reported in bug #15669 from Madelaine Thibaut.
The best way to fix this mess seems to be to reimplement IS_DUMMY_REL
so that it drills down through any ProjectSetPath nodes that might be
there (and it seems like we'd better allow for ProjectionPath as well).
While we're at it, make it look at rel->pathlist not cheapest_total_path,
so that it gives the right answer independently of whether set_cheapest
has been done lately. That dependency looks pretty shaky in the context
of code like apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths, and even if it's not broken
today it'd certainly bite us at some point. (Nastily, unsafe use of the
old coding would almost always work; the hazard comes down to possibly
looking through a dangling pointer, and only once in a blue moon would
you find something there that resulted in the wrong answer.)
It now looks like it was a mistake for IS_DUMMY_REL to be a macro: if
there are any extensions using it, they'll continue to use the old
inadequate logic until they're recompiled, after which they'll fail
to load into server versions predating this fix. Hopefully there are
few such extensions.
Having fixed IS_DUMMY_REL, the special path for dummy rels in
apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths is unnecessary as well as being wrong,
so we can just drop it.
Also change a few places that were testing for partitioned-ness of a
planner relation but not using IS_PARTITIONED_REL for the purpose; that
seems unsafe as well as inconsistent, plus it required an ugly hack in
apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths.
In passing, save a few cycles in apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths by
skipping processing of pre-existing paths for partitioned rels,
and do some cosmetic cleanup and comment adjustment in that function.
I renamed IS_DUMMY_PATH to IS_DUMMY_APPEND with the intention of breaking
any code that might be using it, since in almost every case that would
be wrong; IS_DUMMY_REL is what to be using instead.
In HEAD, also make set_dummy_rel_pathlist static (since it's no longer
used from outside allpaths.c), and delete is_dummy_plan, since it's no
longer used anywhere.
Back-patch as appropriate into v11 and v10.
Tom Lane and Julien Rouhaud
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15669-02fb3296cca26203@postgresql.org
In the case where inheritance_planner() finds that every table has
been excluded by constraints, it thought it could get away with
making a plan consisting of just a dummy Result node. While certainly
there's no updating or deleting to be done, this had two user-visible
problems: the plan did not report the correct set of output columns
when a RETURNING clause was present, and if there were any
statement-level triggers that should be fired, it didn't fire them.
Hence, rather than only generating the dummy Result, we need to
stick a valid ModifyTable node on top, which requires a tad more
effort here.
It's been broken this way for as long as inheritance_planner() has
known about deleting excluded subplans at all (cf commit 635d42e9c),
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane, per a report from Petr Fedorov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5da6f0f0-1364-1876-6978-907678f89a3e@phystech.edu
Check ec_relids before bothering to iterate through the EC members.
On a perhaps extreme, but still real-world, query in which
match_eclasses_to_foreign_key_col() accounts for the bulk of the
planner's runtime, this saves nearly 40% of the runtime. It's a bit
of a stopgap fix, but it's simple enough to be back-patched to 9.6
where this code came in; so let's do that.
David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/6970.1545327857@sss.pgh.pa.us
The recursion in contain_nonstrict_functions_walker() was done wrong,
causing the strictness check to be bypassed for a parse node that
is the immediate input of an ArrayCoerceExpr node. This could allow,
for example, incorrect decisions about whether a strict SQL function
can be inlined.
I didn't add a regression test, because (a) the bug is so narrow
and (b) I couldn't think of a test case that wasn't dependent on a
large number of other behaviors, to the point where it would likely
soon rot to the point of not testing what it was intended to.
I broke this in commit c12d570fa, so back-patch to v11.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/27571.1550617881@sss.pgh.pa.us
We're only going to consider key columns when creating indexquals,
so there is no point in having the outer loops in indxpath.c iterate
further than nkeycolumns.
Doing so in match_pathkeys_to_index() is actually wrong, and would have
caused crashes by now, except that we have no index AMs supporting both
amcanorderbyop and amcaninclude.
It's also wrong in relation_has_unique_index_for(). The effect there is
to fail to prove uniqueness even when the index does prove it, if there
are extra columns.
Also future-proof examine_variable() for the day when extra columns can
be expressions, and fix what's either a thinko or just an oversight in
btcostestimate(): we should consider the number of key columns, not the
total, when deciding whether to derate correlation.
None of these things seemed important enough to risk changing in a
just-before-wrap patch, but since we're past the release wrap window,
time to fix 'em.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/25526.1549847928@sss.pgh.pa.us
indxpath.c needs a good deal more attention for covering indexes than
it's gotten. But so far as I can tell, the only really awful breakage
is in expand_indexqual_rowcompare (nee adjust_rowcompare_for_index),
which was only half fixed in c266ed31a. The other problems aren't
bad enough to take the risk of a just-before-wrap fix.
The problem here is that if the leading column of a row comparison
matches an index (allowing this code to be reached), and some later
column doesn't match the index, it'll nonetheless believe that that
column matches the first included index column. Typically that'll
lead to an error like "operator M is not a member of opfamily N" as
a result of fetching a garbage opfamily OID. But with enough bad
luck, maybe a broken plan would be generated.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/25526.1549847928@sss.pgh.pa.us
The previous ordering of these steps satisfied the nominal requirement
that set_rel_pathlist_hook could editorialize on the whole set of Paths
constructed for a base relation. In practice, though, trying to change
the set of partial paths was impossible. Adding one didn't work because
(a) it was too late to be included in Gather paths made by the core code,
and (b) calling add_partial_path after generate_gather_paths is unsafe,
because it might try to delete a path it thinks is dominated, but that
is already embedded in some Gather path(s). Nor could the hook safely
remove partial paths, for the same reason that they might already be
embedded in Gathers.
Better to call extensions first, let them add partial paths as desired,
and then gather. In v11 and up, we already doubled down on that ordering
by postponing gathering even further for single-relation queries; so even
if the hook wished to editorialize on Gather path construction, it could
not.
Report and patch by KaiGai Kohei. Back-patch to 9.6 where Gather paths
were added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOP8fzahwpKJRTVVTqo2AE=mDTz_efVzV6Get_0=U3SO+-ha1A@mail.gmail.com
As reported in bug #15613 from Srinivasan S A, file_fdw and postgres_fdw
neglected to mark plain baserel foreign paths as parameterized when the
relation has lateral_relids. Other FDWs have surely copied this mistake,
so rather than just patching those two modules, install a band-aid fix
in create_foreignscan_path to rectify the mistake centrally.
Although the band-aid is enough to fix the visible symptom, correct
the calls in file_fdw and postgres_fdw anyway, so that they are valid
examples for external FDWs.
Also, since the band-aid isn't enough to make this work for parameterized
foreign joins, throw an elog(ERROR) if such a case is passed to
create_foreignscan_path. This shouldn't pose much of a problem for
existing external FDWs, since it's likely they aren't trying to make such
paths anyway (though some of them may need a defense against joins with
lateral_relids, similar to the one this patch installs into postgres_fdw).
Add some assertions in relnode.c to catch future occurrences of the same
error --- in particular, as backstop against core-code mistakes like the
one fixed by commit bdd9a99aa.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15613-092be1be9576c728@postgresql.org
create_lateral_join_info() computes a bunch of information about lateral
references between base relations, and then attempts to propagate those
markings to appendrel children of the original base relations. But the
original coding neglected the possibility of indirect descendants
(grandchildren etc). During v11 development we noticed that this was
wrong for partitioned-table cases, but failed to realize that it was just
as wrong for any appendrel. While the case can't arise for appendrels
derived from traditional table inheritance (because we make a flat
appendrel for that), nested appendrels can arise from nested UNION ALL
subqueries. Failure to mark the lower-level relations as having lateral
references leads to confusion in add_paths_to_append_rel about whether
unparameterized paths can be built. It's not very clear whether that
leads to any user-visible misbehavior; the lack of field reports suggests
that it may cause nothing worse than minor cost misestimation. Still,
it's a bug, and it leads to failures of Asserts that I intend to add
later.
To fix, we need to propagate information from all appendrel parents,
not just those that are RELOPT_BASERELs. We can still do it in one
pass, if we rely on the append_rel_list to be ordered with ancestor
relationships before descendant ones; add assertions checking that.
While fixing this, we can make a small performance improvement by
traversing the append_rel_list just once instead of separately for
each appendrel parent relation.
Noted while investigating bug #15613, though this patch does not fix
that (which is why I'm not committing the related Asserts yet).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3951.1549403812@sss.pgh.pa.us
Previously, in set_append_rel_size(), we generated tlists and EC members
for dummy children for possible use by partition-wise join, even if
partition-wise join was disabled or the top parent was not a partitioned
table, but adding such EC members causes noticeable planning speed
degradation for queries with certain kinds of join quals like
"(foo.x + bar.y) = constant" where foo and bar are partitioned tables in
cases where there are lots of dummy children, as the EC members lists
grow huge, especially for the ECs derived from such join quals, which
makes the search for the parent EC members in add_child_rel_equivalences()
very time-consuming. Postpone the work until such children are actually
involved in a partition-wise join.
Reported-by: Sanyo Capobiango
Analyzed-by: Justin Pryzby and Alvaro Herrera
Author: Amit Langote, with a few additional changes by me
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat
Backpatch-through: v11 where partition-wise join was added
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAO698qZnrxoZu7MEtfiJmpmUtz3AVYFVnwzR%2BpqjF%3DrmKBTgpw%40mail.gmail.com
Up to now, createplan.c attempted to share PARAM_EXEC slots for
NestLoopParams across different plan levels, if the same underlying Var
was being fed down to different righthand-side subplan trees by different
NestLoops. This was, I think, more of an artifact of using subselect.c's
PlannerParamItem infrastructure than an explicit design goal, but anyway
that was the end result.
This works well enough as long as the plan tree is executing synchronously,
but the feature whereby Gather can execute the parallelized subplan locally
breaks it. An upper NestLoop node might execute for a row retrieved from
a parallel worker, and assign a value for a PARAM_EXEC slot from that row,
while the leader's copy of the parallelized subplan is suspended with a
different active value of the row the Var comes from. When control
eventually returns to the leader's subplan, it gets the wrong answers if
the same PARAM_EXEC slot is being used within the subplan, as reported
in bug #15577 from Bartosz Polnik.
This is pretty reminiscent of the problem fixed in commit 46c508fbc, and
the proper fix seems to be the same: don't try to share PARAM_EXEC slots
across different levels of controlling NestLoop nodes.
This requires decoupling NestLoopParam handling from PlannerParamItem
handling, although the logic remains somewhat similar. To avoid bizarre
division of labor between subselect.c and createplan.c, I decided to move
all the param-slot-assignment logic for both cases out of those files
and put it into a new file paramassign.c. Hopefully it's a bit better
documented now, too.
A regression test case for this might be nice, but we don't know a
test case that triggers the problem with a suitably small amount
of data.
Back-patch to 9.6 where we added Gather nodes. It's conceivable that
related problems exist in older branches; but without some evidence
for that, I'll leave the older branches alone.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15577-ca61ab18904af852@postgresql.org
MinMaxExpr invokes the btree comparison function for its input datatype,
so it's only leakproof if that function is. Many such functions are
indeed leakproof, but others are not, and we should not just assume that
they are. Hence, adjust contain_leaked_vars to verify the leakproofness
of the referenced function explicitly.
I didn't add a regression test because it would need to depend on
some particular comparison function being leaky, and that's a moving
target, per discussion.
This has been wrong all along, so back-patch to supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/31042.1546194242@sss.pgh.pa.us
"rescanratio" was computed as 1 + rescanned-tuples / total-inner-tuples,
which is sensible if it's to be multiplied by total-inner-tuples or a cost
value corresponding to scanning all the inner tuples. But in reality it
was (mostly) multiplied by inner_rows or a related cost, numbers that take
into account the possibility of stopping short of scanning the whole inner
relation thanks to a limited key range in the outer relation. This'd
still make sense if we could expect that stopping short would result in a
proportional decrease in the number of tuples that have to be rescanned.
It does not, however. The argument that establishes the validity of our
estimate for that number is independent of whether we scan all of the inner
relation or stop short, and experimentation also shows that stopping short
doesn't reduce the number of rescanned tuples. So the correct calculation
is 1 + rescanned-tuples / inner_rows, and we should be sure to multiply
that by inner_rows or a corresponding cost value.
Most of the time this doesn't make much difference, but if we have
both a high rescan rate (due to lots of duplicate values) and an outer
key range much smaller than the inner key range, then the error can
be significant, leading to a large underestimate of the cost associated
with rescanning.
Per report from Vijaykumar Jain. This thinko appears to go all the way
back to the introduction of the rescan estimation logic in commit
70fba7043, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAE7uO5hMb_TZYJcZmLAgO6iD68AkEK6qCe7i=vZUkCpoKns+EQ@mail.gmail.com
postgres_fdw's postgresGetForeignPlan() assumes without checking that the
outer_plan it's given for a join relation must have a NestLoop, MergeJoin,
or HashJoin node at the top. That's been wrong at least since commit
4bbf6edfb (which could cause insertion of a Sort node on top) and it seems
like a pretty unsafe thing to Just Assume even without that.
Through blind good fortune, this doesn't seem to have any worse
consequences today than strange EXPLAIN output, but it's clearly trouble
waiting to happen.
To fix, test the node type explicitly before touching Join-specific
fields, and avoid jamming the new tlist into a node type that can't
do projection. Export a new support function from createplan.c
to avoid building low-level knowledge about the latter into FDWs.
Back-patch to 9.6 where the faulty coding was added. Note that the
associated regression test cases don't show any changes before v11,
apparently because the tests back-patched with 4bbf6edfb don't actually
exercise the problem case before then (there's no top-level Sort
in those plans).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8946.1544644803@sss.pgh.pa.us
Our support for multiple-set-clauses in UPDATE assumes that the Params
referencing a MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK SubPlan will appear before that SubPlan
in the targetlist of the plan node that calculates the updated row.
(Yeah, it's a hack...) In some PG branches it's possible that a Result
node gets inserted between the primary calculation of the update tlist
and the ModifyTable node. setrefs.c did the wrong thing in this case
and left the upper-level Params as Params, causing a crash at runtime.
What it should do is replace them with "outer" Vars referencing the child
plan node's output. That's a result of careless ordering of operations
in fix_upper_expr_mutator, so we can fix it just by reordering the code.
Fix fix_join_expr_mutator similarly for consistency, even though join
nodes could never appear in such a context. (In general, it seems
likely to be a bit cheaper to use Vars than Params in such situations
anyway, so this patch might offer a tiny performance improvement.)
The hazard extends back to 9.5 where the MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK stuff
was introduced, so back-patch that far. However, this may be a live
bug only in 9.6.x and 10.x, as the other branches don't seem to want
to calculate the final tlist below the Result node. (That plan shape
change between branches might be a mini-bug in itself, but I'm not
really interested in digging into the reasons for that right now.
Still, add a regression test memorializing what we expect there,
so we'll notice if it changes again.)
Per bug report from Eduards Bezverhijs.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b6cd572a-3e44-8785-75e9-c512a5a17a73@tieto.com
classify_index_clause_usage() is O(N^2) in the number of distinct index
qual clauses it considers, because of its use of a simple search list to
store them. For nearly all queries, that's fine because only a few clauses
will be considered. But Alexander Kuzmenkov reported a machine-generated
query with 80000 (!) index qual clauses, which caused this code to take
forever. Somewhat remarkably, this is the only O(N^2) behavior we now
have for such a query, so let's fix it.
We can get rid of the O(N^2) runtime for cases like this without much
damage to the functionality of choose_bitmap_and() by separating out
paths with "too many" qual or pred clauses, and deeming them to always
be nonredundant with other paths. Then their clauses needn't go into
the search list, so it doesn't get too long, but we don't lose the
ability to consider bitmap AND plans altogether. I set the threshold
for "too many" to be 100 clauses per path, which should be plenty to
ensure no change in planning behavior for normal queries.
There are other things we could do to make this go faster, but it's not
clear that it's worth any additional effort. 80000 qual clauses require
a whole lot of work in many other places, too.
The code's been like this for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches. The troublesome query only works back to 9.5 (in 9.4 it fails
with stack overflow in the parser); so I'm not sure that fixing this in
9.4 has any real-world benefit, but perhaps it does.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/90c5bdfa-d633-dabe-9889-3cf3e1acd443@postgrespro.ru
An array-type coercion appearing within a CASE that has a constant
(after const-folding) test expression was mangled by the planner, causing
all the elements of the resulting array to be equal to the coerced value
of the CASE's test expression. This is my oversight in commit c12d570fa:
that changed ArrayCoerceExpr to use a subexpression involving a
CaseTestExpr, and I didn't notice that eval_const_expressions needed an
adjustment to keep from folding such a CaseTestExpr to a constant when
it's inside a suitable CASE.
This is another in what's getting to be a depressingly long line of bugs
associated with misidentification of the referent of a CaseTestExpr.
We're overdue to redesign that mechanism; but any such fix is unlikely
to be back-patchable into v11. As a stopgap, fix eval_const_expressions
to do what it must here. Also add a bunch of comments pointing out the
restrictions and assumptions that are needed to make this work at all.
Also fix a related oversight: contain_context_dependent_node() was not
aware of the relationship of ArrayCoerceExpr to CaseTestExpr. That was
somewhat fail-soft, in that the outcome of a wrong answer would be to
prevent optimizations that could have been made, but let's fix it while
we're at it.
Per bug #15471 from Matt Williams. Back-patch to v11 where the faulty
logic came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15471-1117f49271989bad@postgresql.org
Allowing sub-select containing LIMIT/OFFSET in workers can lead to
inconsistent results at the top-level as there is no guarantee that the
row order will be fully deterministic. The fix is to prohibit pushing
LIMIT/OFFSET within sub-selects to workers.
Reported-by: Andrew Fletcher
Bug: 15324
Author: Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Dilip Kumar
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/153417684333.10284.11356259990921828616@wrigleys.postgresql.org
workers.
Allowing window function calculation in workers leads to inconsistent
results because if the input row ordering is not fully deterministic, the
output of window functions might vary across workers. The fix is to treat
them as parallel-restricted.
In the passing, improve the coding pattern in max_parallel_hazard_walker
so that it has a chain of mutually-exclusive if ... else if ... else if
... else if ... IsA tests.
Reported-by: Marko Tiikkaja
Bug: 15324
Author: Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAL9smLAnfPJCDUUG4ckX2iznj53V7VSMsYefzZieN93YxTNOcw@mail.gmail.com
Commit f49842d, which added support for partitionwise joins, built the
child's tlist by applying adjust_appendrel_attrs() to the parent's. So in
the case where the parent's included a whole-row Var for the parent, the
child's contained a ConvertRowtypeExpr. To cope with that, that commit
added code to the planner, such as setrefs.c, but some code paths still
assumed that the tlist for a scan (or join) rel would only include Vars
and PlaceHolderVars, which was true before that commit, causing errors:
* When creating an explicit sort node for an input path for a mergejoin
path for a child join, prepare_sort_from_pathkeys() threw the 'could not
find pathkey item to sort' error.
* When deparsing a relation participating in a pushed down child join as a
subquery in contrib/postgres_fdw, get_relation_column_alias_ids() threw
the 'unexpected expression in subquery output' error.
* When performing set_plan_references() on a local join plan generated by
contrib/postgres_fdw for EvalPlanQual support for a pushed down child
join, fix_join_expr() threw the 'variable not found in subplan target
lists' error.
To fix these, two approaches have been proposed: one by Ashutosh Bapat and
one by me. While the former keeps building the child's tlist with a
ConvertRowtypeExpr, the latter builds it with a whole-row Var for the
child not to violate the planner assumption, and tries to fix it up later,
But both approaches need more work, so refuse to generate partitionwise
join paths when whole-row Vars are involved, instead. We don't need to
handle ConvertRowtypeExprs in the child's tlists for now, so this commit
also removes the changes to the planner.
Previously, partitionwise join computed attr_needed data for each child
separately, and built the child join's tlist using that data, which also
required an extra step for adding PlaceHolderVars to that tlist, but it
would be more efficient to build it from the parent join's tlist through
the adjust_appendrel_attrs() transformation. So this commit builds that
list that way, and simplifies build_joinrel_tlist() and placeholder.c as
well as part of set_append_rel_size() to basically what they were before
partitionwise join went in.
Back-patch to PG11 where partitionwise join was introduced.
Report by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi. Analysis by Ashutosh Bapat, who also
provided some of regression tests. Patch by me, reviewed by Robert Haas.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6ktu-8tefLWtQuuZBYFaZA83vUzuRd7c1YHC-yEWyYFpg@mail.gmail.com
When considering a partitioning parent rel, we should stop processing that
subroot as soon as we've done adjust_appendrel_attrs and any securityQuals
updates. The rest of this is unnecessary, and indeed adding duplicate
subquery RTEs to the subroot is *wrong*. As the code stood, the children
of that partition ended up with two sets of copied subquery RTEs, confusing
matters greatly. Even more hilarity ensued if all of the children got
excluded by constraint exclusion, so that the extra RTEs didn't make it
back into the parent rtable.
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich. Back-patch to v11 where this
got broken (by commit 0a480502b, it looks like).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87va8g7vq0.fsf@ansel.ydns.eu
Commit 9da0cc35284, which introduced parallel CREATE INDEX, failed to
propagate relmapper.c backend local cache state to parallel worker
processes. This could result in parallel index builds against mapped
catalog relations where the leader process (participating as a worker)
scans the new, pristine relfilenode, while worker processes scan the
obsolescent relfilenode. When this happened, the final index structure
was typically not consistent with the owning table's structure. The
final index structure could contain entries formed from both heap
relfilenodes. Only rebuilds on mapped catalog relations that occur as
part of a VACUUM FULL or CLUSTER could become corrupt in practice, since
their mapped relation relfilenode swap is what allows the inconsistency
to arise.
On master, fix the problem by propagating the required relmapper.c
backend state as part of standard parallel initialization (Cf. commit
29d58fd3). On v11, simply disallow builds against mapped catalog
relations by deeming them parallel unsafe.
Author: Peter Geoghegan
Reported-By: "death lock"
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Amit Kapila
Bug: #15309
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/153329671686.1405.18298309097348420351@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Backpatch: 11-, where parallel CREATE INDEX was introduced.
The previous coding here supposed that if run-time partitioning applied to
a particular Append/MergeAppend plan, then all child plans of that node
must be members of a single partitioning hierarchy. This is totally wrong,
since an Append could be formed from a UNION ALL: we could have multiple
hierarchies sharing the same Append, or child plans that aren't part of any
hierarchy.
To fix, restructure the related plan-time and execution-time data
structures so that we can have a separate list or array for each
partitioning hierarchy. Also track subplans that are not part of any
hierarchy, and make sure they don't get pruned.
Per reports from Phil Florent and others. Back-patch to v11, since
the bug originated there.
David Rowley, with a lot of cosmetic adjustments by me; thanks also
to Amit Langote for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/HE1PR03MB17068BB27404C90B5B788BCABA7B0@HE1PR03MB1706.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
Since commit 6719b238e it's been possible for the values of plpgsql
record field variables to be exposed to the planner as Params.
(Before that, plpgsql never supplied values for such variables during
planning, so that the problematic code wasn't reached.) Other places
that touch potentially-type-mutable Params either cope gracefully or
do runtime-test-and-ereport checks that the type is what they expect.
But eval_const_expressions() just had an Assert, meaning that it either
failed the assertion or risked crashes due to using an incompatible
value.
In this case, rather than throwing an ereport immediately, we can just
not perform a const-substitution in case of a mismatch. This seems
important for the same reason that the Param fetch was speculative:
we might not actually reach this part of the expression at runtime.
Test case will follow in a separate commit.
Patch by me, pursuant to bug report from Andrew Gierth.
Back-patch to v11 where the previous commit appeared.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87wotkfju1.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
GatherMergePath (introduced in 10) and CustomPath (introduced in 9.5)
have gone missing. The order of the Path nodes was inconsistent with
what is listed in nodes.h, so make the order consistent at the same time
to ease future checks and additions.
Author: Sawada Masahiko
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAD21AoBQMLoc=ohH-oocuAPsELrmk8_EsRJjOyR8FQLZkbE0wA@mail.gmail.com
Instead of MergeAppendPath, MergeAppend nodes were considered. This
code is not covered by any tests now, which should be addressed at some
point.
This is an oversight from f49842d, which introduced partition-wise joins
in v11, so back-patch down to that.
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180718062202.GC8565@paquier.xyz
A collection of typos I happened to spot while reading code, as well as
grepping for common mistakes.
Backpatch to all supported versions, as applicable, to avoid conflicts
when backporting other commits in the future.
In final_cost_hashjoin(), commit 9c7f5229a allowed inner_unique cases
to follow a code path previously used only for SEMI/ANTI joins; but it
neglected to fix an if-test within that path that assumed SEMI and ANTI
were the only possible cases. This resulted in a wrong value for
hashjointuples, and an ensuing bad cost estimate, for inner_unique normal
joins. Fortunately, for inner_unique normal joins we can assume the number
of joined tuples is the same as for a SEMI join; so there's no need for
more code, we just have to invert the test to check for ANTI not SEMI.
It turns out that in two contrib tests in which commit 9c7f5229a
changed the plan expected for a query, the change was actually wrong
and induced by this estimation error, not by any real improvement.
Hence this patch also reverts those changes.
Per report from RK Korlapati. Backpatch to v10 where the error was
introduced.
David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+SNy03bhq0fodsfOkeWDCreNjJVjsdHwUsb7AG=jpe0PtZc_g@mail.gmail.com
We should only run apply_pathtarget_labeling_to_tlist if CP_LABEL_TLIST
was specified, because only in that case has use_physical_tlist checked
that the labeling will succeed; otherwise we may get an "ORDER/GROUP BY
expression not found in targetlist" error. (This subsumes the previous
test about gating_clauses, because we reset "flags" to zero earlier
if there are gating clauses to apply.)
The only known case in which a failure can occur is with a ProjectSet
path directly atop a table scan path, although it seems likely that there
are other cases or will be such in future. This means that the failure
is currently only visible in the v10 branch: 9.6 didn't have ProjectSet,
while in v11 and HEAD, apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths for some weird
reason is using create_projection_path not apply_projection_to_path,
masking the problem because there's a ProjectionPath in between.
Nonetheless this code is clearly wrong on its own terms, so back-patch
to 9.6 where this logic was introduced.
Per report from Regina Obe.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/001501d40f88$75186950$5f493bf0$@pcorp.us
nodeWindowAgg.c failed to cope with the possibility that no ordering
columns are defined in the window frame for GROUPS mode or RANGE OFFSET
mode, leading to assertion failures or odd errors, as reported by Masahiko
Sawada and Lukas Eder. In RANGE OFFSET mode, an ordering column is really
required, so add an Assert about that. In GROUPS mode, the code would
work, except that the node initialization code wasn't in sync with the
execution code about when to set up tuplestore read pointers and spare
slots. Fix the latter for consistency's sake (even though I think the
changes described below make the out-of-sync cases unreachable for now).
Per SQL spec, a single ordering column is required for RANGE OFFSET mode,
and at least one ordering column is required for GROUPS mode. The parser
enforced the former but not the latter; add a check for that.
We were able to reach the no-ordering-column cases even with fully spec
compliant queries, though, because the planner would drop partitioning
and ordering columns from the generated plan if they were redundant with
earlier columns according to the redundant-pathkey logic, for instance
"PARTITION BY x ORDER BY y" in the presence of a "WHERE x=y" qual.
While in principle that's an optimization that could save some pointless
comparisons at runtime, it seems unlikely to be meaningful in the real
world. I think this behavior was not so much an intentional optimization
as a side-effect of an ancient decision to construct the plan node's
ordering-column info by reverse-engineering the PathKeys of the input
path. If we give up redundant-column removal then it takes very little
code to generate the plan node info directly from the WindowClause,
ensuring that we have the expected number of ordering columns in all
cases. (If anyone does complain about this, the planner could perhaps
be taught to remove redundant columns only when it's safe to do so,
ie *not* in RANGE OFFSET mode. But I doubt anyone ever will.)
With these changes, the WindowAggPath.winpathkeys field is not used for
anything anymore, so remove it.
The test cases added here are not actually very interesting given the
removal of the redundant-column-removal logic, but they would represent
important corner cases if anyone ever tries to put that back.
Tom Lane and Masahiko Sawada. Back-patch to v11 where RANGE OFFSET
and GROUPS modes were added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAD21AoDrWqycq-w_+Bx1cjc+YUhZ11XTj9rfxNiNDojjBx8Fjw@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/153086788677.17476.8002640580496698831@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Since recent commit 1c7c317c, temporary relations cannot be mixed with
permanent relations within the same partition tree, and the same counts
for temporary relations created by other sessions, which the planner
simply discarded. Instead be paranoid and issue an error, as those
should be blocked at definition time, at least for now.
At the same time, a test case is added to stress what has been moved
when expand_partitioned_rtentry gets called recursively but bumps on a
partitioned relation with no partitions which should be handled the same
way as the non-inheritance case. This code may be reworked in a close
future, and covering this code path will limit surprises.
Reported-by: David Rowley
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Robert Haas, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f_HyV1txn_4XSdH5EOhBMYaCwsXyAj6bHXk9gOu4JKsbw@mail.gmail.com
find_appinfos_by_relids had quite a large overhead when the number of
items in the append_rel_list was high, as it had to trawl through the
append_rel_list looking for AppendRelInfos belonging to the given
childrelids. Since there can only be a single AppendRelInfo for each
child rel, it seems much better to store an array in PlannerInfo which
indexes these by child relid, making the function O(1) rather than O(N).
This function was only called once inside the planner, so just replace
that call with a lookup to the new array. find_childrel_appendrelinfo
is now unused and thus removed.
This fixes a planner performance regression new to v11 reported by
Thomas Reiss.
Author: David Rowley
Reported-by: Thomas Reiss
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/94dd7a4b-5e50-0712-911d-2278e055c622@dalibo.com
Previously, if some or all partitions had no partially aggregated path,
we would still try to generate a partially aggregated path for the
parent, leading to assertion failures or wrong answers.
Report by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi. Patch by Jeevan Chalke, reviewed
by Ashutosh Bapat. A few changes by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6=q4+Mw8gOOX16ef6ZMFp9Cve7KWFstUsrDa4GiFaXGUQ@mail.gmail.com
The create_append_path code didn't consider that list_concat will
modify it's first argument leading to inconsistent traversal of
resulting list. In practice, it won't lead to any user-visible bug
but changing it for making the code behave consistently.
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Author: Tom Lane
Reviewed-by: Amit Khandekar and Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/32365.1528994120@sss.pgh.pa.us
