|
|
|
|
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* execScan.c
|
|
|
|
|
* This code provides support for generalized relation scans. ExecScan
|
|
|
|
|
* is passed a node and a pointer to a function to "do the right thing"
|
|
|
|
|
* and return a tuple from the relation. ExecScan then does the tedious
|
|
|
|
|
* stuff - checking the qualification and projecting the tuple
|
|
|
|
|
* appropriately.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2021, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
|
|
|
|
|
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* IDENTIFICATION
|
|
|
|
|
* src/backend/executor/execScan.c
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
#include "postgres.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "executor/executor.h"
|
|
|
|
|
#include "miscadmin.h"
|
|
|
|
|
#include "utils/memutils.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* ExecScanFetch -- check interrupts & fetch next potential tuple
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* This routine is concerned with substituting a test tuple if we are
|
|
|
|
|
* inside an EvalPlanQual recheck. If we aren't, just execute
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
* the access method's next-tuple routine.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static inline TupleTableSlot *
|
|
|
|
|
ExecScanFetch(ScanState *node,
|
|
|
|
|
ExecScanAccessMtd accessMtd,
|
|
|
|
|
ExecScanRecheckMtd recheckMtd)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
EState *estate = node->ps.state;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
if (estate->es_epq_active != NULL)
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
EPQState *epqstate = estate->es_epq_active;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We are inside an EvalPlanQual recheck. Return the test tuple if
|
|
|
|
|
* one is available, after rechecking any access-method-specific
|
|
|
|
|
* conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
Index scanrelid = ((Scan *) node->ps.plan)->scanrelid;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allow foreign and custom joins to handle EvalPlanQual rechecks.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 provided basic
infrastructure for allowing a foreign data wrapper or custom scan
provider to replace a join of one or more tables with a scan.
However, this infrastructure failed to take into account the need
for possible EvalPlanQual rechecks, and ExecScanFetch would fail
an assertion (or just overwrite memory) if such a check was attempted
for a plan containing a pushed-down join. To fix, adjust the EPQ
machinery to skip some processing steps when scanrelid == 0, making
those the responsibility of scan's recheck method, which also has
the responsibility in this case of correctly populating the relevant
slot.
To allow foreign scans to gain control in the right place to make
use of this new facility, add a new, optional RecheckForeignScan
method. Also, allow a foreign scan to have a child plan, which can
be used to correctly populate the slot (or perhaps for something
else, but this is the only use currently envisioned).
KaiGai Kohei, reviewed by Robert Haas, Etsuro Fujita, and Kyotaro
Horiguchi.
10 years ago
|
|
|
if (scanrelid == 0)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* This is a ForeignScan or CustomScan which has pushed down a
|
|
|
|
|
* join to the remote side. The recheck method is responsible not
|
|
|
|
|
* only for rechecking the scan/join quals but also for storing
|
|
|
|
|
* the correct tuple in the slot.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TupleTableSlot *slot = node->ss_ScanTupleSlot;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allow foreign and custom joins to handle EvalPlanQual rechecks.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 provided basic
infrastructure for allowing a foreign data wrapper or custom scan
provider to replace a join of one or more tables with a scan.
However, this infrastructure failed to take into account the need
for possible EvalPlanQual rechecks, and ExecScanFetch would fail
an assertion (or just overwrite memory) if such a check was attempted
for a plan containing a pushed-down join. To fix, adjust the EPQ
machinery to skip some processing steps when scanrelid == 0, making
those the responsibility of scan's recheck method, which also has
the responsibility in this case of correctly populating the relevant
slot.
To allow foreign scans to gain control in the right place to make
use of this new facility, add a new, optional RecheckForeignScan
method. Also, allow a foreign scan to have a child plan, which can
be used to correctly populate the slot (or perhaps for something
else, but this is the only use currently envisioned).
KaiGai Kohei, reviewed by Robert Haas, Etsuro Fujita, and Kyotaro
Horiguchi.
10 years ago
|
|
|
if (!(*recheckMtd) (node, slot))
|
|
|
|
|
ExecClearTuple(slot); /* would not be returned by scan */
|
|
|
|
|
return slot;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
else if (epqstate->relsubs_done[scanrelid - 1])
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Return empty slot, as we already performed an EPQ substitution
|
|
|
|
|
* for this relation.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
TupleTableSlot *slot = node->ss_ScanTupleSlot;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
/* Return empty slot, as we already returned a tuple */
|
|
|
|
|
return ExecClearTuple(slot);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else if (epqstate->relsubs_slot[scanrelid - 1] != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Return replacement tuple provided by the EPQ caller.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
TupleTableSlot *slot = epqstate->relsubs_slot[scanrelid - 1];
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(epqstate->relsubs_rowmark[scanrelid - 1] == NULL);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Mark to remember that we shouldn't return more */
|
|
|
|
|
epqstate->relsubs_done[scanrelid - 1] = true;
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
|
Store tuples for EvalPlanQual in slots, rather than as HeapTuples.
For the upcoming pluggable table access methods it's quite
inconvenient to store tuples as HeapTuples, as that'd require
converting tuples from a their native format into HeapTuples. Instead
use slots to manage epq tuples.
To fit into that scheme, change the foreign data wrapper callback
RefetchForeignRow, to store the tuple in a slot. Insist on using the
caller provided slot, so it conveniently can be stored in the
corresponding EPQ slot. As there is no in core user of
RefetchForeignRow, that change was done blindly, but we plan to test
that soon.
To avoid duplicating that work for row locks, move row locks to just
directly use the EPQ slots - it previously temporarily stored tuples
in LockRowsState.lr_curtuples, but that doesn't seem beneficial, given
we'd possibly end up with a significant number of additional slots.
The behaviour of es_epqTupleSet[rti -1] is now checked by
es_epqTupleSlot[rti -1] != NULL, as that is distinguishable from a
slot containing an empty tuple.
Author: Andres Freund, Haribabu Kommi, Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180703070645.wchpu5muyto5n647@alap3.anarazel.de
7 years ago
|
|
|
/* Return empty slot if we haven't got a test tuple */
|
|
|
|
|
if (TupIsNull(slot))
|
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Check if it meets the access-method conditions */
|
|
|
|
|
if (!(*recheckMtd) (node, slot))
|
|
|
|
|
return ExecClearTuple(slot); /* would not be returned by
|
|
|
|
|
* scan */
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
return slot;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else if (epqstate->relsubs_rowmark[scanrelid - 1] != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Fetch and return replacement tuple using a non-locking rowmark.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TupleTableSlot *slot = node->ss_ScanTupleSlot;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Mark to remember that we shouldn't return more */
|
|
|
|
|
epqstate->relsubs_done[scanrelid - 1] = true;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!EvalPlanQualFetchRowMark(epqstate, scanrelid, slot))
|
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
/* Return empty slot if we haven't got a test tuple */
|
|
|
|
|
if (TupIsNull(slot))
|
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Check if it meets the access-method conditions */
|
|
|
|
|
if (!(*recheckMtd) (node, slot))
|
|
|
|
|
return ExecClearTuple(slot); /* would not be returned by
|
|
|
|
|
* scan */
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
return slot;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Run the node-type-specific access method function to get the next tuple
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
return (*accessMtd) (node);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* ----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
* ExecScan
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Scans the relation using the 'access method' indicated and
|
|
|
|
|
* returns the next qualifying tuple.
|
|
|
|
|
* The access method returns the next tuple and ExecScan() is
|
|
|
|
|
* responsible for checking the tuple returned against the qual-clause.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
* A 'recheck method' must also be provided that can check an
|
|
|
|
|
* arbitrary tuple of the relation against any qual conditions
|
|
|
|
|
* that are implemented internal to the access method.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Conditions:
|
|
|
|
|
* -- the "cursor" maintained by the AMI is positioned at the tuple
|
|
|
|
|
* returned previously.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Initial States:
|
|
|
|
|
* -- the relation indicated is opened for scanning so that the
|
|
|
|
|
* "cursor" is positioned before the first qualifying tuple.
|
|
|
|
|
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
TupleTableSlot *
|
|
|
|
|
ExecScan(ScanState *node,
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
ExecScanAccessMtd accessMtd, /* function returning a tuple */
|
|
|
|
|
ExecScanRecheckMtd recheckMtd)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
ExprContext *econtext;
|
Faster expression evaluation and targetlist projection.
This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with
non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation.
Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation.
This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes
future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier.
The speed gains primarily come from:
- non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead
- simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without
function calls
- sharing some state between different sub-expressions
- reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying
out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of
nearly all of the previously used linked lists
- more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding
constant re-checks at evaluation time
Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as
demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later
release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split
between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be
handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the
generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can
easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation.
The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.:
- basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup
overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared
statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where
initialization overhead is measurable.
- optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential
work has already been made.
- optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have
been made here too.
The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some
backward-incompatible changes:
- Function permission checks are now done during expression
initialization, whereas previously they were done during
execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that
previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a
different array type previously didn't perform checks.
- The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once
during expression initialization, previously it was re-built
every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this
doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches
ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior
around might still change.
Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane,
changes by Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
9 years ago
|
|
|
ExprState *qual;
|
|
|
|
|
ProjectionInfo *projInfo;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Fetch data from node
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
qual = node->ps.qual;
|
|
|
|
|
projInfo = node->ps.ps_ProjInfo;
|
|
|
|
|
econtext = node->ps.ps_ExprContext;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* interrupt checks are in ExecScanFetch */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If we have neither a qual to check nor a projection to do, just skip
|
|
|
|
|
* all the overhead and return the raw scan tuple.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (!qual && !projInfo)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
ResetExprContext(econtext);
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
return ExecScanFetch(node, accessMtd, recheckMtd);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Reset per-tuple memory context to free any expression evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
* storage allocated in the previous tuple cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
ResetExprContext(econtext);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* get a tuple from the access method. Loop until we obtain a tuple that
|
|
|
|
|
* passes the qualification.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
for (;;)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
TupleTableSlot *slot;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
slot = ExecScanFetch(node, accessMtd, recheckMtd);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* if the slot returned by the accessMtd contains NULL, then it means
|
|
|
|
|
* there is nothing more to scan so we just return an empty slot,
|
|
|
|
|
* being careful to use the projection result slot so it has correct
|
|
|
|
|
* tupleDesc.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (TupIsNull(slot))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
if (projInfo)
|
Faster expression evaluation and targetlist projection.
This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with
non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation.
Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation.
This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes
future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier.
The speed gains primarily come from:
- non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead
- simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without
function calls
- sharing some state between different sub-expressions
- reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying
out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of
nearly all of the previously used linked lists
- more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding
constant re-checks at evaluation time
Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as
demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later
release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split
between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be
handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the
generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can
easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation.
The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.:
- basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup
overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared
statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where
initialization overhead is measurable.
- optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential
work has already been made.
- optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have
been made here too.
The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some
backward-incompatible changes:
- Function permission checks are now done during expression
initialization, whereas previously they were done during
execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that
previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a
different array type previously didn't perform checks.
- The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once
during expression initialization, previously it was re-built
every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this
doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches
ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior
around might still change.
Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane,
changes by Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
9 years ago
|
|
|
return ExecClearTuple(projInfo->pi_state.resultslot);
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
return slot;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* place the current tuple into the expr context
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
econtext->ecxt_scantuple = slot;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* check that the current tuple satisfies the qual-clause
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
Faster expression evaluation and targetlist projection.
This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with
non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation.
Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation.
This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes
future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier.
The speed gains primarily come from:
- non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead
- simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without
function calls
- sharing some state between different sub-expressions
- reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying
out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of
nearly all of the previously used linked lists
- more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding
constant re-checks at evaluation time
Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as
demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later
release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split
between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be
handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the
generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can
easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation.
The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.:
- basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup
overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared
statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where
initialization overhead is measurable.
- optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential
work has already been made.
- optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have
been made here too.
The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some
backward-incompatible changes:
- Function permission checks are now done during expression
initialization, whereas previously they were done during
execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that
previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a
different array type previously didn't perform checks.
- The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once
during expression initialization, previously it was re-built
every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this
doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches
ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior
around might still change.
Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane,
changes by Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
9 years ago
|
|
|
* check for non-null qual here to avoid a function call to ExecQual()
|
|
|
|
|
* when the qual is null ... saves only a few cycles, but they add up
|
|
|
|
|
* ...
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
Faster expression evaluation and targetlist projection.
This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with
non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation.
Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation.
This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes
future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier.
The speed gains primarily come from:
- non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead
- simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without
function calls
- sharing some state between different sub-expressions
- reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying
out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of
nearly all of the previously used linked lists
- more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding
constant re-checks at evaluation time
Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as
demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later
release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split
between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be
handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the
generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can
easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation.
The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.:
- basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup
overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared
statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where
initialization overhead is measurable.
- optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential
work has already been made.
- optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have
been made here too.
The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some
backward-incompatible changes:
- Function permission checks are now done during expression
initialization, whereas previously they were done during
execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that
previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a
different array type previously didn't perform checks.
- The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once
during expression initialization, previously it was re-built
every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this
doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches
ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior
around might still change.
Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane,
changes by Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
9 years ago
|
|
|
if (qual == NULL || ExecQual(qual, econtext))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Found a satisfactory scan tuple.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (projInfo)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Form a projection tuple, store it in the result tuple slot
|
|
|
|
|
* and return it.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
return ExecProject(projInfo);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Here, we aren't projecting, so just return scan tuple.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
return slot;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
InstrCountFiltered1(node, 1);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Tuple fails qual, so free per-tuple memory and try again.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
ResetExprContext(econtext);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo
|
|
|
|
|
* Set up projection info for a scan node, if necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* We can avoid a projection step if the requested tlist exactly matches
|
|
|
|
|
* the underlying tuple type. If so, we just set ps_ProjInfo to NULL.
|
|
|
|
|
* Note that this case occurs not only for simple "SELECT * FROM ...", but
|
|
|
|
|
* also in most cases where there are joins or other processing nodes above
|
|
|
|
|
* the scan node, because the planner will preferentially generate a matching
|
|
|
|
|
* tlist.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The scan slot's descriptor must have been set already.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void
|
|
|
|
|
ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo(ScanState *node)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Scan *scan = (Scan *) node->ps.plan;
|
|
|
|
|
TupleDesc tupdesc = node->ss_ScanTupleSlot->tts_tupleDescriptor;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo(&node->ps, tupdesc, scan->scanrelid);
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
10 years ago
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* ExecAssignScanProjectionInfoWithVarno
|
|
|
|
|
* As above, but caller can specify varno expected in Vars in the tlist.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void
|
Remove arbitrary 64K-or-so limit on rangetable size.
Up to now the size of a query's rangetable has been limited by the
constants INNER_VAR et al, which mustn't be equal to any real
rangetable index. 65000 doubtless seemed like enough for anybody,
and it still is orders of magnitude larger than the number of joins
we can realistically handle. However, we need a rangetable entry
for each child partition that is (or might be) processed by a query.
Queries with a few thousand partitions are getting more realistic,
so that the day when that limit becomes a problem is in sight,
even if it's not here yet. Hence, let's raise the limit.
Rather than just increase the values of INNER_VAR et al, this patch
adopts the approach of making them small negative values, so that
rangetables could theoretically become as long as INT_MAX.
The bulk of the patch is concerned with changing Var.varno and some
related variables from "Index" (unsigned int) to plain "int". This
is basically cosmetic, with little actual effect other than to help
debuggers print their values nicely. As such, I've only bothered
with changing places that could actually see INNER_VAR et al, which
the parser and most of the planner don't. We do have to be careful
in places that are performing less/greater comparisons on varnos,
but there are very few such places, other than the IS_SPECIAL_VARNO
macro itself.
A notable side effect of this patch is that while it used to be
possible to add INNER_VAR et al to a Bitmapset, that will now
draw an error. I don't see any likelihood that it wouldn't be a
bug to include these fake varnos in a bitmapset of real varnos,
so I think this is all to the good.
Although this touches outfuncs/readfuncs, I don't think a catversion
bump is required, since stored rules would never contain Vars
with these fake varnos.
Andrey Lepikhov and Tom Lane, after a suggestion by Peter Eisentraut
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/43c7f2f5-1e27-27aa-8c65-c91859d15190@postgrespro.ru
4 years ago
|
|
|
ExecAssignScanProjectionInfoWithVarno(ScanState *node, int varno)
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
10 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
TupleDesc tupdesc = node->ss_ScanTupleSlot->tts_tupleDescriptor;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo(&node->ps, tupdesc, varno);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* ExecScanReScan
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* This must be called within the ReScan function of any plan node type
|
|
|
|
|
* that uses ExecScan().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void
|
|
|
|
|
ExecScanReScan(ScanState *node)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
EState *estate = node->ps.state;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix failure in WHERE CURRENT OF after rewinding the referenced cursor.
In a case where we have multiple relation-scan nodes in a cursor plan,
such as a scan of an inheritance tree, it's possible to fetch from a
given scan node, then rewind the cursor and fetch some row from an
earlier scan node. In such a case, execCurrent.c mistakenly thought
that the later scan node was still active, because ExecReScan hadn't
done anything to make it look not-active. We'd get some sort of
failure in the case of a SeqScan node, because the node's scan tuple
slot would be pointing at a HeapTuple whose t_self gets reset to
invalid by heapam.c. But it seems possible that for other relation
scan node types we'd actually return a valid tuple TID to the caller,
resulting in updating or deleting a tuple that shouldn't have been
considered current. To fix, forcibly clear the ScanTupleSlot in
ExecScanReScan.
Another issue here, which seems only latent at the moment but could
easily become a live bug in future, is that rewinding a cursor does
not necessarily lead to *immediately* applying ExecReScan to every
scan-level node in the plan tree. Upper-level nodes will think that
they can postpone that call if their child node is already marked
with chgParam flags. I don't see a way for that to happen today in
a plan tree that's simple enough for execCurrent.c's search_plan_tree
to understand, but that's one heck of a fragile assumption. So, add
some logic in search_plan_tree to detect chgParam flags being set on
nodes that it descended to/through, and assume that that means we
should consider lower scan nodes to be logically reset even if their
ReScan call hasn't actually happened yet.
Per bug #15395 from Matvey Arye. This has been broken for a long time,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/153764171023.14986.280404050547008575@wrigleys.postgresql.org
7 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We must clear the scan tuple so that observers (e.g., execCurrent.c)
|
|
|
|
|
* can tell that this plan node is not positioned on a tuple.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
ExecClearTuple(node->ss_ScanTupleSlot);
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
/* Rescan EvalPlanQual tuple if we're inside an EvalPlanQual recheck */
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
if (estate->es_epq_active != NULL)
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
EPQState *epqstate = estate->es_epq_active;
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
Index scanrelid = ((Scan *) node->ps.plan)->scanrelid;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allow foreign and custom joins to handle EvalPlanQual rechecks.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 provided basic
infrastructure for allowing a foreign data wrapper or custom scan
provider to replace a join of one or more tables with a scan.
However, this infrastructure failed to take into account the need
for possible EvalPlanQual rechecks, and ExecScanFetch would fail
an assertion (or just overwrite memory) if such a check was attempted
for a plan containing a pushed-down join. To fix, adjust the EPQ
machinery to skip some processing steps when scanrelid == 0, making
those the responsibility of scan's recheck method, which also has
the responsibility in this case of correctly populating the relevant
slot.
To allow foreign scans to gain control in the right place to make
use of this new facility, add a new, optional RecheckForeignScan
method. Also, allow a foreign scan to have a child plan, which can
be used to correctly populate the slot (or perhaps for something
else, but this is the only use currently envisioned).
KaiGai Kohei, reviewed by Robert Haas, Etsuro Fujita, and Kyotaro
Horiguchi.
10 years ago
|
|
|
if (scanrelid > 0)
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
epqstate->relsubs_done[scanrelid - 1] = false;
|
Allow foreign and custom joins to handle EvalPlanQual rechecks.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 provided basic
infrastructure for allowing a foreign data wrapper or custom scan
provider to replace a join of one or more tables with a scan.
However, this infrastructure failed to take into account the need
for possible EvalPlanQual rechecks, and ExecScanFetch would fail
an assertion (or just overwrite memory) if such a check was attempted
for a plan containing a pushed-down join. To fix, adjust the EPQ
machinery to skip some processing steps when scanrelid == 0, making
those the responsibility of scan's recheck method, which also has
the responsibility in this case of correctly populating the relevant
slot.
To allow foreign scans to gain control in the right place to make
use of this new facility, add a new, optional RecheckForeignScan
method. Also, allow a foreign scan to have a child plan, which can
be used to correctly populate the slot (or perhaps for something
else, but this is the only use currently envisioned).
KaiGai Kohei, reviewed by Robert Haas, Etsuro Fujita, and Kyotaro
Horiguchi.
10 years ago
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Bitmapset *relids;
|
|
|
|
|
int rtindex = -1;
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
|
Allow foreign and custom joins to handle EvalPlanQual rechecks.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 provided basic
infrastructure for allowing a foreign data wrapper or custom scan
provider to replace a join of one or more tables with a scan.
However, this infrastructure failed to take into account the need
for possible EvalPlanQual rechecks, and ExecScanFetch would fail
an assertion (or just overwrite memory) if such a check was attempted
for a plan containing a pushed-down join. To fix, adjust the EPQ
machinery to skip some processing steps when scanrelid == 0, making
those the responsibility of scan's recheck method, which also has
the responsibility in this case of correctly populating the relevant
slot.
To allow foreign scans to gain control in the right place to make
use of this new facility, add a new, optional RecheckForeignScan
method. Also, allow a foreign scan to have a child plan, which can
be used to correctly populate the slot (or perhaps for something
else, but this is the only use currently envisioned).
KaiGai Kohei, reviewed by Robert Haas, Etsuro Fujita, and Kyotaro
Horiguchi.
10 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If an FDW or custom scan provider has replaced the join with a
|
|
|
|
|
* scan, there are multiple RTIs; reset the epqScanDone flag for
|
|
|
|
|
* all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (IsA(node->ps.plan, ForeignScan))
|
|
|
|
|
relids = ((ForeignScan *) node->ps.plan)->fs_relids;
|
|
|
|
|
else if (IsA(node->ps.plan, CustomScan))
|
|
|
|
|
relids = ((CustomScan *) node->ps.plan)->custom_relids;
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
elog(ERROR, "unexpected scan node: %d",
|
|
|
|
|
(int) nodeTag(node->ps.plan));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while ((rtindex = bms_next_member(relids, rtindex)) >= 0)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(rtindex > 0);
|
Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve efficiency.
In ad0bda5d24ea I changed the EvalPlanQual machinery to store
substitution tuples in slot, instead of using plain HeapTuples. The
main motivation for that was that using HeapTuples will be inefficient
for future tableams. But it turns out that that conversion was buggy
for non-locking rowmarks - the wrong tuple descriptor was used to
create the slot.
As a secondary issue 5db6df0c0 changed ExecLockRows() to begin EPQ
earlier, to allow to fetch the locked rows directly into the EPQ
slots, instead of having to copy tuples around. Unfortunately, as Tom
complained, that forces some expensive initialization to happen
earlier.
As a third issue, the test coverage for EPQ was clearly insufficient.
Fixing the first issue is unfortunately not trivial: Non-locked row
marks were fetched at the start of EPQ, and we don't have the type
information for the rowmarks available at that point. While we could
change that, it's not easy. It might be worthwhile to change that at
some point, but to fix this bug, it seems better to delay fetching
non-locking rowmarks when they're actually needed, rather than
eagerly. They're referenced at most once, and in cases where EPQ
fails, might never be referenced. Fetching them when needed also
increases locality a bit.
To be able to fetch rowmarks during execution, rather than
initialization, we need to be able to access the active EPQState, as
that contains necessary data. To do so move EPQ related data from
EState to EPQState, and, only for EStates creates as part of EPQ,
reference the associated EPQState from EState.
To fix the second issue, change EPQ initialization to allow use of
EvalPlanQualSlot() to be used before EvalPlanQualBegin() (but
obviously still requiring EvalPlanQualInit() to have been done).
As these changes made struct EState harder to understand, e.g. by
adding multiple EStates, significantly reorder the members, and add a
lot more comments.
Also add a few more EPQ tests, including one that fails for the first
issue above. More is needed.
Reported-By: yi huang
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAHU7rYZo_C4ULsAx_LAj8az9zqgrD8WDd4hTegDTMM1LMqrBsg@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/24530.1562686693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch: 12-, where the EPQ changes were introduced
6 years ago
|
|
|
epqstate->relsubs_done[rtindex - 1] = false;
|
Allow foreign and custom joins to handle EvalPlanQual rechecks.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 provided basic
infrastructure for allowing a foreign data wrapper or custom scan
provider to replace a join of one or more tables with a scan.
However, this infrastructure failed to take into account the need
for possible EvalPlanQual rechecks, and ExecScanFetch would fail
an assertion (or just overwrite memory) if such a check was attempted
for a plan containing a pushed-down join. To fix, adjust the EPQ
machinery to skip some processing steps when scanrelid == 0, making
those the responsibility of scan's recheck method, which also has
the responsibility in this case of correctly populating the relevant
slot.
To allow foreign scans to gain control in the right place to make
use of this new facility, add a new, optional RecheckForeignScan
method. Also, allow a foreign scan to have a child plan, which can
be used to correctly populate the slot (or perhaps for something
else, but this is the only use currently envisioned).
KaiGai Kohei, reviewed by Robert Haas, Etsuro Fujita, and Kyotaro
Horiguchi.
10 years ago
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
16 years ago
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
