209 Commits (17b6f39f19b1a54baac36f38b49067b0ce9fd7b0)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Alexander Korotkov	17b6f39f19	Fix indentation in ExecParallelHashIncreaseNumBatches() ... Backpatch-through: 12	2 years ago
Alexander Korotkov	60de25c6ef	Fix oversized memory allocation in Parallel Hash Join ... During the calculations of the maximum for the number of buckets, take into account that later we round that to the next power of 2. Reported-by: Karen Talarico Bug: #16925 Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16925-ec96d83529d0d629%40postgresql.org Author: Thomas Munro, Andrei Lepikhov, Alexander Korotkov Reviewed-by: Alena Rybakina Backpatch-through: 12	2 years ago
Thomas Munro	6e94d62e3f	Fix race in parallel hash join batch cleanup, take II. ... With unlucky timing and parallel_leader_participation=off (not the default), PHJ could attempt to access per-batch shared state just as it was being freed. There was code intended to prevent that by checking for a cleared pointer, but it was racy. Fix, by introducing an extra barrier phase. The new phase PHJ_BUILD_RUNNING means that it's safe to access the per-batch state to find a batch to help with, and PHJ_BUILD_DONE means that it is too late. The last to detach will free the array of per-batch state as before, but now it will also atomically advance the phase, so that late attachers can avoid the hazard. This mirrors the way per-batch hash tables are freed (see phases PHJ_BATCH_PROBING and PHJ_BATCH_DONE). An earlier attempt to fix this (commit 3b8981b6, later reverted) missed one special case. When the inner side is empty (the "empty inner optimization), the build barrier would only make it to PHJ_BUILD_HASHING_INNER phase before workers attempted to detach from the hashtable. In that case, fast-forward the build barrier to PHJ_BUILD_RUNNING before proceeding, so that our later assertions hold and we can still negotiate who is cleaning up. Revealed by build farm failures, where BarrierAttach() failed a sanity check assertion, because the memory had been clobbered by dsa_free(). In non-assert builds, the result could be a segmentation fault. Back-patch to all supported releases. Author: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> Author: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> Reported-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> Reported-by: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com> Tested-by: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200929061142.GA29096%40paquier.xyz	3 years ago
Tom Lane	4878ea717c	Avoid misbehavior when hash_table_bytes < bucket_size. ... It's possible to reach this case when work_mem is very small and tupsize is (relatively) very large. In that case ExecChooseHashTableSize would get an assertion failure, or with asserts off it'd compute nbuckets = 0, which'd likely cause misbehavior later (I've not checked). To fix, clamp the number of buckets to be at least 1. This is due to faulty conversion of old my_log2() coding in 28d936031. Back-patch to v13, as that was. Zhang Mingli Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/beb64ca0-91e2-44ac-bf4a-7ea36275ec02@Spark	3 years ago
Tom Lane	2b8f3f5a7c	Get rid of artificial restriction on hash table sizes on Windows. ... The point of introducing the hash_mem_multiplier GUC was to let users reproduce the old behavior of hash aggregation, i.e. that it could use more than work_mem at need. However, the implementation failed to get the job done on Win64, where work_mem is clamped to 2GB to protect various places that calculate memory sizes using "long int". As written, the same clamp was applied to hash_mem. This resulted in severe performance regressions for queries requiring a bit more than 2GB for hash aggregation, as they now spill to disk and there's no way to stop that. Getting rid of the work_mem restriction seems like a good idea, but it's a big job and could not conceivably be back-patched. However, there's only a fairly small number of places that are concerned with the hash_mem value, and it turns out to be possible to remove the restriction there without too much code churn or any ABI breaks. So, let's do that for now to fix the regression, and leave the larger task for another day. This patch does introduce a bit more infrastructure that should help with the larger task, namely pg_bitutils.h support for working with size_t values. Per gripe from Laurent Hasson. Back-patch to v13 where the behavior change came in. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/997817.1627074924@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/MN2PR15MB25601E80A9B6D1BA6F592B1985E39@MN2PR15MB2560.namprd15.prod.outlook.com	4 years ago
Thomas Munro	69739ec317	Revert "Fix race in Parallel Hash Join batch cleanup." ... This reverts commit 4e0f0995e9. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGJmcqAE3MZeDCLLXa62cWM0AJbKmp2JrJYaJ86bz36LFA%40mail.gmail.com	5 years ago
Thomas Munro	4e0f0995e9	Fix race in Parallel Hash Join batch cleanup. ... With very unlucky timing and parallel_leader_participation off, PHJ could attempt to access per-batch state just as it was being freed. There was code intended to prevent that by checking for a cleared pointer, but it was buggy. Fix, by introducing an extra barrier phase. The new phase PHJ_BUILD_RUNNING means that it's safe to access the per-batch state to find a batch to help with, and PHJ_BUILD_DONE means that it is too late. The last to detach will free the array of per-batch state as before, but now it will also atomically advance the phase at the same time, so that late attachers can avoid the hazard, without the data race. This mirrors the way per-batch hash tables are freed (see phases PHJ_BATCH_PROBING and PHJ_BATCH_DONE). Revealed by a one-off build farm failure, where BarrierAttach() failed a sanity check assertion, because the memory had been clobbered by dsa_free(). Back-patch to 11, where the code arrived. Reported-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200929061142.GA29096%40paquier.xyz	5 years ago
Peter Geoghegan	78530c8e7a	Add hash_mem_multiplier GUC. ... Add a GUC that acts as a multiplier on work_mem. It gets applied when sizing executor node hash tables that were previously size constrained using work_mem alone. The new GUC can be used to preferentially give hash-based nodes more memory than the generic work_mem limit. It is intended to enable admin tuning of the executor's memory usage. Overall system throughput and system responsiveness can be improved by giving hash-based executor nodes more memory (especially over sort-based alternatives, which are often much less sensitive to being memory constrained). The default value for hash_mem_multiplier is 1.0, which is also the minimum valid value. This means that hash-based nodes continue to apply work_mem in the traditional way by default. hash_mem_multiplier is generally useful. However, it is being added now due to concerns about hash aggregate performance stability for users that upgrade to Postgres 13 (which added disk-based hash aggregation in commit 1f39bce0). While the old hash aggregate behavior risked out-of-memory errors, it is nevertheless likely that many users actually benefited. Hash agg's previous indifference to work_mem during query execution was not just faster; it also accidentally made aggregation resilient to grouping estimate problems (at least in cases where this didn't create destabilizing memory pressure). hash_mem_multiplier can provide a certain kind of continuity with the behavior of Postgres 12 hash aggregates in cases where the planner incorrectly estimates that all groups (plus related allocations) will fit in work_mem/hash_mem. This seems necessary because hash-based aggregation is usually much slower when only a small fraction of all groups can fit. Even when it isn't possible to totally avoid hash aggregates that spill, giving hash aggregation more memory will reliably improve performance (the same cannot be said for external sort operations, which appear to be almost unaffected by memory availability provided it's at least possible to get a single merge pass). The PostgreSQL 13 release notes should advise users that increasing hash_mem_multiplier can help with performance regressions associated with hash aggregation. That can be taken care of by a later commit. Author: Peter Geoghegan Reviewed-By: Álvaro Herrera, Jeff Davis Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200625203629.7m6yvut7eqblgmfo@alap3.anarazel.de Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzmD%2Bi1pG6rc1%2BCjc4V6EaFJ_qSuKCCHVnH%3DoruqD-zqow%40mail.gmail.com Backpatch: 13-, where disk-based hash aggregation was introduced.	5 years ago
Tom Lane	3048898e73	Mop-up for wait event naming issues. ... Synchronize the event names for parallel hash join waits with other event names, by getting rid of the slashes and dropping "-ing" suffixes. Rename ClogGroupUpdate to XactGroupUpdate, to match the new SLRU name. Move the ProcSignalBarrier event to the IPC category; it doesn't belong under IO. Also a bit more wordsmithing in the wait event documentation tables. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4505.1589640417@sss.pgh.pa.us	5 years ago
Alvaro Herrera	17cc133f01	Dial back -Wimplicit-fallthrough to level 3 ... The additional pain from level 4 is excessive for the gain. Also revert all the source annotation changes to their original wordings, to avoid back-patching pain. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/31166.1589378554@sss.pgh.pa.us	5 years ago
Alvaro Herrera	3e9744465d	Add -Wimplicit-fallthrough to CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS ... Use it at level 4, a bit more restrictive than the default level, and tweak our commanding comments to FALLTHROUGH. (However, leave zic.c alone, since it's external code; to avoid the warnings that would appear there, change CFLAGS for that file in the Makefile.) Author: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200412081825.qyo5vwwco3fv4gdo@nol Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/flat/E1fDenm-0000C8-IJ@gemulon.postgresql.org	5 years ago
Tom Lane	969f9d0b4b	Make EXPLAIN report maximum hashtable usage across multiple rescans. ... Before discarding the old hash table in ExecReScanHashJoin, capture its statistics, ensuring that we report the maximum hashtable size across repeated rescans of the hash input relation. We can repurpose the existing code for reporting hashtable size in parallel workers to help with this, making the patch pretty small. This also ensures that if rescans happen within parallel workers, we get the correct maximums across all instances. Konstantin Knizhnik and Tom Lane, per diagnosis by Thomas Munro of a trouble report from Alvaro Herrera. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200323165059.GA24950@alvherre.pgsql	6 years ago
David Rowley	02a2e8b442	Modify additional power 2 calculations to use new helper functions ... 2nd pass of modifying various places which obtain the next power of 2 of a number and make them use the new functions added in f0705bb62. In passing, also modify num_combinations(). This can be implemented using simple bitshifting rather than looping. Reviewed-by: John Naylor Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200114173553.GE32763%40fetter.org	6 years ago
Bruce Momjian	7559d8ebfa	Update copyrights for 2020 ... Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4	6 years ago
Thomas Munro	e69d644547	Rotate instead of shifting hash join batch number. ... Our algorithm for choosing batch numbers turned out not to work effectively for multi-billion key inner relations. We would use more hash bits than we have, and effectively concentrate all tuples into a smaller number of batches than we intended. While ideally we should switch to wider hashes, for now, change the algorithm to one that effectively gives up bits from the bucket number when we don't have enough bits. That means we'll finish up with longer bucket chains than would be ideal, but that's better than having batches that don't fit in work_mem and can't be divided. Batch-patch to all supported releases. Author: Thomas Munro Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, thanks also to Tomas Vondra, Alvaro Herrera, Andres Freund for testing and discussion Reported-by: James Coleman Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16104-dc11ed911f1ab9df%40postgresql.org	6 years ago
Amit Kapila	14aec03502	Make the order of the header file includes consistent in backend modules. ... Similar to commits 7e735035f2 and dddf4cdc33, this commit makes the order of header file inclusion consistent for backend modules. In the passing, removed a couple of duplicate inclusions. Author: Vignesh C Reviewed-by: Kuntal Ghosh and Amit Kapila Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALDaNm2Sznv8RR6Ex-iJO6xAdsxgWhCoETkaYX=+9DW3q0QCfA@mail.gmail.com	6 years ago
Andres Freund	2abd7ae9b2	Fix representation of hash keys in Hash/HashJoin nodes. ... In 5f32b29c18 I changed the creation of HashState.hashkeys to actually use HashState as the parent (instead of HashJoinState, which was incorrect, as they were executed below HashState), to fix the problem of hashkeys expressions otherwise relying on slot types appropriate for HashJoinState, rather than HashState as would be correct. That reliance was only introduced in 12, which is why it previously worked to use HashJoinState as the parent (although I'd be unsurprised if there were problematic cases). Unfortunately that's not a sufficient solution, because before this commit, the to-be-hashed expressions referenced inner/outer as appropriate for the HashJoin, not Hash. That didn't have obvious bad consequences, because the slots containing the tuples were put into ecxt_innertuple when hashing a tuple for HashState (even though Hash doesn't have an inner plan). There are less common cases where this can cause visible problems however (rather than just confusion when inspecting such executor trees). E.g. "ERROR: bogus varno: 65000", when explaining queries containing a HashJoin where the subsidiary Hash node's hash keys reference a subplan. While normally hashkeys aren't displayed by EXPLAIN, if one of those expressions references a subplan, that subplan may be printed as part of the Hash node - which then failed because an inner plan was referenced, and Hash doesn't have that. It seems quite possible that there's other broken cases, too. Fix the problem by properly splitting the expression for the HashJoin and Hash nodes at plan time, and have them reference the proper subsidiary node. While other workarounds are possible, fixing this correctly seems easy enough. It was a pretty ugly hack to have ExecInitHashJoin put the expression into the already initialized HashState, in the first place. I decided to not just split inner/outer hashkeys inside make_hashjoin(), but also to separate out hashoperators and hashcollations at plan time. Otherwise we would have ended up having two very similar loops, one at plan time and the other during executor startup. The work seems to more appropriately belong to plan time, anyway. Reported-By: Nikita Glukhov, Alexander Korotkov Author: Andres Freund Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, in an earlier version Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdvGVegF_TKKRiBrSmatJL2dR9uwFCuR+teQ_8tEXU8mxg@mail.gmail.com Backpatch: 12-	6 years ago
Michael Paquier	3412030205	Fix more typos and inconsistencies in the tree ... Author: Alexander Lakhin Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/0a5419ea-1452-a4e6-72ff-545b1a5a8076@gmail.com	6 years ago
Tom Lane	8255c7a5ee	Phase 2 pgindent run for v12. ... Switch to 2.1 version of pg_bsd_indent. This formats multiline function declarations "correctly", that is with additional lines of parameter declarations indented to match where the first line's left parenthesis is. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0P3FeTXRcU5B2W3jv3PgRVZ-kGUXLGfd42FFhUROO3ug@mail.gmail.com	6 years ago
Peter Eisentraut	5e1963fb76	Collations with nondeterministic comparison ... This adds a flag "deterministic" to collations. If that is false, such a collation disables various optimizations that assume that strings are equal only if they are byte-wise equal. That then allows use cases such as case-insensitive or accent-insensitive comparisons or handling of strings with different Unicode normal forms. This functionality is only supported with the ICU provider. At least glibc doesn't appear to have any locales that work in a nondeterministic way, so it's not worth supporting this for the libc provider. The term "deterministic comparison" in this context is from Unicode Technical Standard #10 (https://unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Deterministic_Comparison). This patch makes changes in three areas: - CREATE COLLATION DDL changes and system catalog changes to support this new flag. - Many executor nodes and auxiliary code are extended to track collations. Previously, this code would just throw away collation information, because the eventually-called user-defined functions didn't use it since they only cared about equality, which didn't need collation information. - String data type functions that do equality comparisons and hashing are changed to take the (non-)deterministic flag into account. For comparison, this just means skipping various shortcuts and tie breakers that use byte-wise comparison. For hashing, we first need to convert the input string to a canonical "sort key" using the ICU analogue of strxfrm(). Reviewed-by: Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org> Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1ccc668f-4cbc-0bef-af67-450b47cdfee7@2ndquadrant.com	7 years ago
Bruce Momjian	97c39498e5	Update copyright for 2019 ... Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4	7 years ago
Andres Freund	1a0586de36	Introduce notion of different types of slots (without implementing them). ... Upcoming work intends to allow pluggable ways to introduce new ways of storing table data. Accessing those table access methods from the executor requires TupleTableSlots to be carry tuples in the native format of such storage methods; otherwise there'll be a significant conversion overhead. Different access methods will require different data to store tuples efficiently (just like virtual, minimal, heap already require fields in TupleTableSlot). To allow that without requiring additional pointer indirections, we want to have different structs (embedding TupleTableSlot) for different types of slots. Thus different types of slots are needed, which requires adapting creators of slots. The slot that most efficiently can represent a type of tuple in an executor node will often depend on the type of slot a child node uses. Therefore we need to track the type of slot is returned by nodes, so parent slots can create slots based on that. Relatedly, JIT compilation of tuple deforming needs to know which type of slot a certain expression refers to, so it can create an appropriate deforming function for the type of tuple in the slot. But not all nodes will only return one type of slot, e.g. an append node will potentially return different types of slots for each of its subplans. Therefore add function that allows to query the type of a node's result slot, and whether it'll always be the same type (whether it's fixed). This can be queried using ExecGetResultSlotOps(). The scan, result, inner, outer type of slots are automatically inferred from ExecInitScanTupleSlot(), ExecInitResultSlot(), left/right subtrees respectively. If that's not correct for a node, that can be overwritten using new fields in PlanState. This commit does not introduce the actually abstracted implementation of different kind of TupleTableSlots, that will be left for a followup commit. The different types of slots introduced will, for now, still use the same backing implementation. While this already partially invalidates the big comment in tuptable.h, it seems to make more sense to update it later, when the different TupleTableSlot implementations actually exist. Author: Ashutosh Bapat and Andres Freund, with changes by Amit Khandekar Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de	7 years ago
Andres Freund	763f2edd92	Rejigger materializing and fetching a HeapTuple from a slot. ... Previously materializing a slot always returned a HeapTuple. As current work aims to reduce the reliance on HeapTuples (so other storage systems can work efficiently), that needs to change. Thus split the tasks of materializing a slot (i.e. making it independent from the underlying storage / other memory contexts) from fetching a HeapTuple from the slot. For brevity, allow to fetch a HeapTuple from a slot and materializing the slot at the same time, controlled by a parameter. For now some callers of ExecFetchSlotHeapTuple, with materialize = true, expect that changes to the heap tuple will be reflected in the underlying slot. Those places will be adapted in due course, so while not pretty, that's OK for now. Also rename ExecFetchSlotTuple to ExecFetchSlotHeapTupleDatum and ExecFetchSlotTupleDatum to ExecFetchSlotHeapTupleDatum, as it's likely that future storage methods will need similar methods. There already is ExecFetchSlotMinimalTuple, so the new names make the naming scheme more coherent. Author: Ashutosh Bapat and Andres Freund, with changes by Amit Khandekar Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de	7 years ago
Andres Freund	1ef6bd2954	Don't require return slots for nodes without projection. ... In a lot of nodes the return slot is not required. That can either be because the node doesn't do any projection (say an Append node), or because the node does perform projections but the projection is optimized away because the projection would yield an identical row. Slots aren't that small, especially for wide rows, so it's worthwhile to avoid creating them. It's not possible to just skip creating the slot - it's currently used to determine the tuple descriptor returned by ExecGetResultType(). So separate the determination of the result type from the slot creation. The work previously done internally ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() can now also be done separately with ExecInitResultTypeTL() and ExecInitResultSlot(). That way nodes that aren't guaranteed to need a result slot, can use ExecInitResultTypeTL() to determine the result type of the node, and ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo() (via ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo()) determines that a result slot is needed, it is created with ExecInitResultSlot(). Besides the advantage of avoiding to create slots that then are unused, this is necessary preparation for later patches around tuple table slot abstraction. In particular separating the return descriptor and slot is a prerequisite to allow JITing of tuple deforming with knowledge of the underlying tuple format, and to avoid unnecessarily creating JITed tuple deforming for virtual slots. This commit removes a redundant argument from ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL(). While this commit touches a lot of the relevant lines anyway, it'd normally still not worthwhile to cause breakage, except that aforementioned later commits will touch *all* ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() callers anyway (but fits worse thematically). Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de	7 years ago
Thomas Munro	86a2218eb0	Limit Parallel Hash's bucket array to MaxAllocSize. ... Make sure that we don't exceed MaxAllocSize when increasing the number of buckets. Perhaps later we'll remove that limit and use DSA_ALLOC_HUGE, but for now just prevent further increases like the non-parallel code. This change avoids the error from bug report #15225. Author: Thomas Munro Reviewed-By: Tom Lane Reported-by: Frits Jalvingh Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/152802081668.26724.16985037679312485972%40wrigleys.postgresql.org	7 years ago
Tom Lane	9e17bdb8a5	Fix query-lifespan memory leakage in repeatedly executed hash joins. ... ExecHashTableCreate allocated some memory that wasn't freed by ExecHashTableDestroy, specifically the per-hash-key function information. That's not a huge amount of data, but if one runs a query that repeats a hash join enough times, it builds up. Fix by arranging for the data in question to be kept in the hashtable's hashCxt instead of leaving it "loose" in the query-lifespan executor context. (This ensures that we'll also clean up anything that the hash functions allocate in fn_mcxt.) Per report from Amit Khandekar. It's been like this forever, so back-patch to all supported branches. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9cFofAWGvcxLOxDHC=B0hjtW8yGmUsF2hdGh97CM38=7g@mail.gmail.com	8 years ago
Andres Freund	ad7dbee368	Allow tupleslots to have a fixed tupledesc, use in executor nodes. ... The reason for doing so is that it will allow expression evaluation to optimize based on the underlying tupledesc. In particular it will allow to JIT tuple deforming together with the expression itself. For that expression initialization needs to be moved after the relevant slots are initialized - mostly unproblematic, except in the case of nodeWorktablescan.c. After doing so there's no need for ExecAssignResultType() and ExecAssignResultTypeFromTL() anymore, as all former callers have been converted to create a slot with a fixed descriptor. When creating a slot with a fixed descriptor, tts_values/isnull can be allocated together with the main slot, reducing allocation overhead and increasing cache density a bit. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171206093717.vqdxe5icqttpxs3p@alap3.anarazel.de	8 years ago
Tom Lane	05d0f13f07	Skip setting up shared instrumentation for Hash node if not needed. ... We don't need to set up the shared space for hash join instrumentation data if instrumentation hasn't been requested. Let's follow the example of the similar Sort node code and save a few cycles by skipping that when we can. This reverts commit d59ff4ab3 and instead allows us to use the safer choice of passing noError = false to shm_toc_lookup in ExecHashInitializeWorker, since if we reach that call there should be a TOC entry to be found. Thomas Munro Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1ehkoZ-0005uW-43%40gemulon.postgresql.org	8 years ago
Tom Lane	d59ff4ab31	Fix another instance of unsafe coding for shm_toc_lookup failure. ... One or another author of commit 5bcf389ec seems to have thought that computing an offset from a NULL pointer would yield another NULL pointer. There may possibly be architectures where that works, but common machines don't work like that. Per a quick code review of places calling shm_toc_lookup and not using noError = false.	8 years ago
Andres Freund	c12693d8f3	Introduce ExecQualAndReset() helper. ... It's a common task to evaluate a qual and reset the corresponding expression context. Currently that requires storing the result of the qual eval, resetting the context, and then reacting on the result. As that's awkward several places only reset the context next time through a node. That's not great, so introduce a helper that evaluates and resets. It's a bit ugly that it currently uses MemoryContextReset() instead of ResetExprContext(), but that seems easier than reordering all of executor.h. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180109222544.f7loxrunqh3xjl5f@alap3.anarazel.de	8 years ago
Tom Lane	6fcde24063	Fix some minor errors in new PHJ code. ... Correct ExecParallelHashTuplePrealloc's estimate of whether the space_allowed limit is exceeded. Be more consistent about tuples that are exactly HASH_CHUNK_THRESHOLD in size (they're "small", not "large"). Neither of these things explain the current buildfarm unhappiness, but they're still bugs. Thomas Munro, per gripe by me Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=34PDuR69kfYVhmZPgMdy8pSA-MYbpesEN1SR+2oj3Y+w@mail.gmail.com	8 years ago
Bruce Momjian	9d4649ca49	Update copyright for 2018 ... Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3	8 years ago
Tom Lane	5dc692f78d	Ensure proper alignment of tuples in HashMemoryChunkData buffers. ... The previous coding relied (without any documentation) on the data[] member of HashMemoryChunkData being at a MAXALIGN'ed offset. If it was not, the tuples would not be maxaligned either, leading to failures on alignment-picky machines. While there seems to be no live bug on any platform we support, this is clearly pretty fragile: any addition to or rearrangement of the fields in HashMemoryChunkData could break it. Let's remove the hazard by getting rid of the data[] member and instead using pointer arithmetic with an explicitly maxalign'ed offset. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/14483.1514938129@sss.pgh.pa.us	8 years ago
Andres Freund	93ea78b17c	Fix EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for Parallel Hash. ... In a race case, EXPLAIN ANALYZE could fail to display correct nbatch and size information. Refactor so that participants report only on batches they worked on rather than trying to report on all of them, and teach explain.c to consider the HashInstrumentation object from all participants instead of picking the first one it can find. This should fix an occasional build farm failure in the "join" regression test. Author: Thomas Munro Reviewed-By: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30219.1514428346%40sss.pgh.pa.us	8 years ago
Andres Freund	f83040c62a	Fix rare assertion failure in parallel hash join. ... When a backend runs out of inner tuples to hash, it should detach from grow_batch_barrier only after it has flushed all batches to disk and merged counters, not before. Otherwise a concurrent backend in ExecParallelHashIncreaseNumBatches() could stop waiting for this backend and try to read tuples before they have been written. This commit reorders those operations and should fix the assertion failures seen occasionally on the build farm since commit 1804284042. Author: Thomas Munro Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1eRwXy-0004IK-TO%40gemulon.postgresql.org	8 years ago
Andres Freund	4e2970f880	Fix assert with side effects in the new PHJ code. ... Instead of asserting the assert just set the value to what it was supposed to test... Per coverity.	8 years ago
Andres Freund	1804284042	Add parallel-aware hash joins. ... Introduce parallel-aware hash joins that appear in EXPLAIN plans as Parallel Hash Join with Parallel Hash. While hash joins could already appear in parallel queries, they were previously always parallel-oblivious and had a partial subplan only on the outer side, meaning that the work of the inner subplan was duplicated in every worker. After this commit, the planner will consider using a partial subplan on the inner side too, using the Parallel Hash node to divide the work over the available CPU cores and combine its results in shared memory. If the join needs to be split into multiple batches in order to respect work_mem, then workers process different batches as much as possible and then work together on the remaining batches. The advantages of a parallel-aware hash join over a parallel-oblivious hash join used in a parallel query are that it: * avoids wasting memory on duplicated hash tables * avoids wasting disk space on duplicated batch files * divides the work of building the hash table over the CPUs One disadvantage is that there is some communication between the participating CPUs which might outweigh the benefits of parallelism in the case of small hash tables. This is avoided by the planner's existing reluctance to supply partial plans for small scans, but it may be necessary to estimate synchronization costs in future if that situation changes. Another is that outer batch 0 must be written to disk if multiple batches are required. A potential future advantage of parallel-aware hash joins is that right and full outer joins could be supported, since there is a single set of matched bits for each hashtable, but that is not yet implemented. A new GUC enable_parallel_hash is defined to control the feature, defaulting to on. Author: Thomas Munro Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Robert Haas Tested-By: Rafia Sabih, Prabhat Sahu Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.com https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com	8 years ago
Robert Haas	8526bcb2df	Try again to fix accumulation of parallel worker instrumentation. ... When a Gather or Gather Merge node is started and stopped multiple times, accumulate instrumentation data only once, at the end, instead of after each execution, to avoid recording inflated totals. Commit 778e78ae9f, the previous attempt at a fix, instead reset the state after every execution, which worked for the general instrumentation data but had problems for the additional instrumentation specific to Sort and Hash nodes. Report by hubert depesz lubaczewski. Analysis and fix by Amit Kapila, following a design proposal from Thomas Munro, with a comment tweak by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20171127175631.GA405@depesz.com	8 years ago
Andres Freund	5bcf389ecf	Fix EXPLAIN ANALYZE of hash join when the leader doesn't participate. ... If a hash join appears in a parallel query, there may be no hash table available for explain.c to inspect even though a hash table may have been built in other processes. This could happen either because parallel_leader_participation was set to off or because the leader happened to hit the end of the outer relation immediately (even though the complete relation is not empty) and decided not to build the hash table. Commit bf11e7ee introduced a way for workers to exchange instrumentation via the DSM segment for Sort nodes even though they are not parallel-aware. This commit does the same for Hash nodes, so that explain.c has a way to find instrumentation data from an arbitrary participant that actually built the hash table. Author: Thomas Munro Reviewed-By: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D3DUQC2-z252N55eOcZBer6DPdM%3DFzrxH9dZc5vYLsjaA%40mail.gmail.com	8 years ago
Peter Eisentraut	2eb4a831e5	Change TRUE/FALSE to true/false ... The lower case spellings are C and C++ standard and are used in most parts of the PostgreSQL sources. The upper case spellings are only used in some files/modules. So standardize on the standard spellings. The APIs for ICU, Perl, and Windows define their own TRUE and FALSE, so those are left as is when using those APIs. In code comments, we use the lower-case spelling for the C concepts and keep the upper-case spelling for the SQL concepts. Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>	8 years ago
Andres Freund	cc9f08b6b8	Move ExecProcNode from dispatch to function pointer based model. ... This allows us to add stack-depth checks the first time an executor node is called, and skip that overhead on following calls. Additionally it yields a nice speedup. While it'd probably have been a good idea to have that check all along, it has become more important after the new expression evaluation framework in b8d7f053c5 - there's no stack depth check in common paths anymore now. We previously relied on ExecEvalExpr() being executed somewhere. We should move towards that model for further routines, but as this is required for v10, it seems better to only do the necessary (which already is quite large). Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane Reported-By: Julien Rouhaud Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us https://postgr.es/m/b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com	8 years ago
Andres Freund	d47cfef711	Move interrupt checking from ExecProcNode() to executor nodes. ... In a followup commit ExecProcNode(), and especially the large switch it contains, will largely be replaced by a function pointer directly to the correct node. The node functions will then get invoked by a thin inline function wrapper. To avoid having to include miscadmin.h in headers - CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() - move the interrupt checks into the individual executor routines. While looking through all executor nodes, I noticed a number of arguably missing interrupt checks, add these too. Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane Reviewed-By: Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us	8 years ago
Tom Lane	382ceffdf7	Phase 3 of pgindent updates. ... Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they flow past the right margin. By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin, then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin, if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column limit. This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers. Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us	8 years ago
Tom Lane	c7b8998ebb	Phase 2 of pgindent updates. ... Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments following #endif to not obey the general rule. Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after. Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else. That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us	8 years ago
Tom Lane	9aab83fc50	Redesign get_attstatsslot()/free_attstatsslot() for more safety and speed. ... The mess cleaned up in commit da0759600 is clear evidence that it's a bug hazard to expect the caller of get_attstatsslot()/free_attstatsslot() to provide the correct type OID for the array elements in the slot. Moreover, we weren't even getting any performance benefit from that, since get_attstatsslot() was extracting the real type OID from the array anyway. So we ought to get rid of that requirement; indeed, it would make more sense for get_attstatsslot() to pass back the type OID it found, in case the caller isn't sure what to expect, which is likely in binary- compatible-operator cases. Another problem with the current implementation is that if the stats array element type is pass-by-reference, we incur a palloc/memcpy/pfree cycle for each element. That seemed acceptable when the code was written because we were targeting O(10) array sizes --- but these days, stats arrays are almost always bigger than that, sometimes much bigger. We can save a significant number of cycles by doing one palloc/memcpy/pfree of the whole array. Indeed, in the now-probably-common case where the array is toasted, that happens anyway so this method is basically free. (Note: although the catcache code will inline any out-of-line toasted values, it doesn't decompress them. At the other end of the size range, it doesn't expand short-header datums either. In either case, DatumGetArrayTypeP would have to make a copy. We do end up using an extra array copy step if the element type is pass-by-value and the array length is neither small enough for a short header nor large enough to have suffered compression. But that seems like a very acceptable price for winning in pass-by-ref cases.) Hence, redesign to take these insights into account. While at it, convert to an API in which we fill a struct rather than passing a bunch of pointers to individual output arguments. That will make it less painful if we ever want further expansion of what get_attstatsslot can pass back. It's certainly arguable that this is new development and not something to push post-feature-freeze. However, I view it as primarily bug-proofing and therefore something that's better to have sooner not later. Since we aren't quite at beta phase yet, let's put it in. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16364.1494520862@sss.pgh.pa.us	8 years ago
Andres Freund	b8d7f053c5	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
Tom Lane	f2ec57dee9	Make sure that hash join's bulk-tuple-transfer loops are interruptible. ... The loops in ExecHashJoinNewBatch(), ExecHashIncreaseNumBatches(), and ExecHashRemoveNextSkewBucket() are all capable of iterating over many tuples without ever doing a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS, so that the backend might fail to respond to SIGINT or SIGTERM for an unreasonably long time. Fix that. In the case of ExecHashJoinNewBatch(), it seems useful to put the added CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS into ExecHashJoinGetSavedTuple() rather than directly in the loop, because that will also ensure that both principal code paths through ExecHashJoinOuterGetTuple() will do a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS, which seems like a good idea to avoid surprises. Back-patch to all supported branches. Tom Lane and Thomas Munro Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/6044.1487121720@sss.pgh.pa.us	9 years ago
Andres Freund	ea15e18677	Remove obsoleted code relating to targetlist SRF evaluation. ... Since 69f4b9c plain expression evaluation (and thus normal projection) can't return sets of tuples anymore. Thus remove code dealing with that possibility. This will require adjustments in external code using ExecEvalExpr()/ExecProject() - that should neither be hard nor very common. Author: Andres Freund and Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160822214023.aaxz5l4igypowyri@alap3.anarazel.de	9 years ago
Bruce Momjian	1d25779284	Update copyright via script for 2017	9 years ago
Tom Lane	ea268cdc9a	Add macros to make AllocSetContextCreate() calls simpler and safer. ... I found that half a dozen (nearly 5%) of our AllocSetContextCreate calls had typos in the context-sizing parameters. While none of these led to especially significant problems, they did create minor inefficiencies, and it's now clear that expecting people to copy-and-paste those calls accurately is not a great idea. Let's reduce the risk of future errors by introducing single macros that encapsulate the common use-cases. Three such macros are enough to cover all but two special-purpose contexts; those two calls can be left as-is, I think. While this patch doesn't in itself improve matters for third-party extensions, it doesn't break anything for them either, and they can gradually adopt the simplified notation over time. In passing, change TopMemoryContext to use the default allocation parameters. Formerly it could only be extended 8K at a time. That was probably reasonable when this code was written; but nowadays we create many more contexts than we did then, so that it's not unusual to have a couple hundred K in TopMemoryContext, even without considering various dubious code that sticks other things there. There seems no good reason not to let it use growing blocks like most other contexts. Back-patch to 9.6, mostly because that's still close enough to HEAD that it's easy to do so, and keeping the branches in sync can be expected to avoid some future back-patching pain. The bugs fixed by these changes don't seem to be significant enough to justify fixing them further back. Discussion: <21072.1472321324@sss.pgh.pa.us>	9 years ago