200 Commits (2489d76c4906f4461a364ca8ad7e0751ead8aa0d)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Tom Lane	8d83a5d0a2	Remove redundant grouping and DISTINCT columns. ... Avoid explicitly grouping by columns that we know are redundant for sorting, for example we need group by only one of x and y in SELECT ... WHERE x = y GROUP BY x, y This comes up more often than you might think, as shown by the changes in the regression tests. It's nearly free to detect too, since we are just piggybacking on the existing logic that detects redundant pathkeys. (In some of the existing plans that change, it's visible that a sort step preceding the grouping step already didn't bother to sort by the redundant column, making the old plan a bit silly-looking.) To do this, build processed_groupClause and processed_distinctClause lists that omit any provably-redundant sort items, and consult those not the originals where relevant. This means that within the planner, one should usually consult root->processed_groupClause or root->processed_distinctClause if one wants to know which columns are to be grouped on; but to check whether grouping or distinct-ing is happening at all, check non-NIL-ness of parse->groupClause or parse->distinctClause. This is comparable to longstanding rules about handling the HAVING clause, so I don't think it'll be a huge maintenance problem. nodeAgg.c also needs minor mods, because it's now possible to generate AGG_PLAIN and AGG_SORTED Agg nodes with zero grouping columns. Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo and David Rowley for review. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/185315.1672179489@sss.pgh.pa.us	3 years ago
Bruce Momjian	c8e1ba736b	Update copyright for 2023 ... Backpatch-through: 11	3 years ago
Tom Lane	f4c7c410ee	Revert "Optimize order of GROUP BY keys". ... This reverts commit db0d67db24 and several follow-on fixes. The idea of making a cost-based choice of the order of the sorting columns is not fundamentally unsound, but it requires cost information and data statistics that we don't really have. For example, relying on procost to distinguish the relative costs of different sort comparators is pretty pointless so long as most such comparator functions are labeled with cost 1.0. Moreover, estimating the number of comparisons done by Quicksort requires more than just an estimate of the number of distinct values in the input: you also need some idea of the sizes of the larger groups, if you want an estimate that's good to better than a factor of three or so. That's data that's often unknown or not very reliable. Worse, to arrive at estimates of the number of calls made to the lower-order-column comparison functions, the code needs to make estimates of the numbers of distinct values of multiple columns, which are necessarily even less trustworthy than per-column stats. Even if all the inputs are perfectly reliable, the cost algorithm as-implemented cannot offer useful information about how to order sorting columns beyond the point at which the average group size is estimated to drop to 1. Close inspection of the code added by db0d67db2 shows that there are also multiple small bugs. These could have been fixed, but there's not much point if we don't trust the estimates to be accurate in-principle. Finally, the changes in cost_sort's behavior made for very large changes (often a factor of 2 or so) in the cost estimates for all sorting operations, not only those for multi-column GROUP BY. That naturally changes plan choices in many situations, and there's precious little evidence to show that the changes are for the better. Given the above doubts about whether the new estimates are really trustworthy, it's hard to summon much confidence that these changes are better on the average. Since we're hard up against the release deadline for v15, let's revert these changes for now. We can always try again later. Note: in v15, I left T_PathKeyInfo in place in nodes.h even though it's unreferenced. Removing it would be an ABI break, and it seems a bit late in the release cycle for that. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/TYAPR01MB586665EB5FB2C3807E893941F5579@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com	3 years ago
Peter Geoghegan	a601366a46	Harmonize more parameter names in bulk. ... Make sure that function declarations use names that exactly match the corresponding names from function definitions in optimizer, parser, utility, libpq, and "commands" code, as well as in remaining library code. Do the same for all code related to frontend programs (with the exception of pg_dump/pg_dumpall related code). Like other recent commits that cleaned up function parameter names, this commit was written with help from clang-tidy. Later commits will handle ecpg and pg_dump/pg_dumpall. Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> Reviewed-By: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WznJt9CMM9KJTMjJh_zbL5hD9oX44qdJ4aqZtjFi-zA3Tg@mail.gmail.com	3 years ago
David Rowley	1349d2790b	Improve performance of ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates ... ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggreagtes have, since implemented in Postgres, been executed by always performing a sort in nodeAgg.c to sort the tuples in the current group into the correct order before calling the transition function on the sorted tuples. This was not great as often there might be an index that could have provided pre-sorted input and allowed the transition functions to be called as the rows come in, rather than having to store them in a tuplestore in order to sort them once all the tuples for the group have arrived. Here we change the planner so it requests a path with a sort order which supports the most amount of ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregate functions and add new code to the executor to allow it to support the processing of ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates where the tuples are already sorted in the correct order. Since there can be many ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates in any given query level, it's very possible that we can't find an order that suits all of these aggregates. The sort order that the planner chooses is simply the one that suits the most aggregate functions. We take the most strictly sorted variation of each order and see how many aggregate functions can use that, then we try again with the order of the remaining aggregates to see if another order would suit more aggregate functions. For example: SELECT agg(a ORDER BY a),agg2(a ORDER BY a,b) ... would request the sort order to be {a, b} because {a} is a subset of the sort order of {a,b}, but; SELECT agg(a ORDER BY a),agg2(a ORDER BY c) ... would just pick a plan ordered by {a} (we give precedence to aggregates which are earlier in the targetlist). SELECT agg(a ORDER BY a),agg2(a ORDER BY b),agg3(a ORDER BY b) ... would choose to order by {b} since two aggregates suit that vs just one that requires input ordered by {a}. Author: David Rowley Reviewed-by: Ronan Dunklau, James Coleman, Ranier Vilela, Richard Guo, Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvpHzfo92%3DR4W0%2BxVua3BUYCKMckWAmo-2t_KiXN-wYH%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com	3 years ago
David Rowley	80ad91ea8c	Fix inconsistent parameter names between prototype and declaration ... Noticed while working in this area. This code was introduced in PG15, which is still in beta, so backpatch to there for consistency. Backpatch-through: 15	3 years ago
Tom Lane	23e7b38bfe	Pre-beta mechanical code beautification. ... Run pgindent, pgperltidy, and reformat-dat-files. I manually fixed a couple of comments that pgindent uglified.	3 years ago
Tom Lane	f3dd9fe1dd	Fix postgres_fdw to check shippability of sort clauses properly. ... postgres_fdw would push ORDER BY clauses to the remote side without verifying that the sort operator is safe to ship. Moreover, it failed to print a suitable USING clause if the sort operator isn't default for the sort expression's type. The net result of this is that the remote sort might not have anywhere near the semantics we expect, which'd be disastrous for locally-performed merge joins in particular. We addressed similar issues in the context of ORDER BY within an aggregate function call in commit 7012b132d, but failed to notice that query-level ORDER BY was broken. Thus, much of the necessary logic already existed, but it requires refactoring to be usable in both cases. Back-patch to all supported branches. In HEAD only, remove the core code's copy of find_em_expr_for_rel, which is no longer used and really should never have been pushed into equivclass.c in the first place. Ronan Dunklau, per report from David Rowley; reviews by David Rowley, Ranier Vilela, and myself Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvr4OeC2DBVY--zVP83-K=bYrTD7F8SZDhN4g+pj2f2S-A@mail.gmail.com	4 years ago
Tomas Vondra	db0d67db24	Optimize order of GROUP BY keys ... When evaluating a query with a multi-column GROUP BY clause using sort, the cost may be heavily dependent on the order in which the keys are compared when building the groups. Grouping does not imply any ordering, so we're allowed to compare the keys in arbitrary order, and a Hash Agg leverages this. But for Group Agg, we simply compared keys in the order as specified in the query. This commit explores alternative ordering of the keys, trying to find a cheaper one. In principle, we might generate grouping paths for all permutations of the keys, and leave the rest to the optimizer. But that might get very expensive, so we try to pick only a couple interesting orderings based on both local and global information. When planning the grouping path, we explore statistics (number of distinct values, cost of the comparison function) for the keys and reorder them to minimize comparison costs. Intuitively, it may be better to perform more expensive comparisons (for complex data types etc.) last, because maybe the cheaper comparisons will be enough. Similarly, the higher the cardinality of a key, the lower the probability we’ll need to compare more keys. The patch generates and costs various orderings, picking the cheapest ones. The ordering of group keys may interact with other parts of the query, some of which may not be known while planning the grouping. E.g. there may be an explicit ORDER BY clause, or some other ordering-dependent operation, higher up in the query, and using the same ordering may allow using either incremental sort or even eliminate the sort entirely. The patch generates orderings and picks those minimizing the comparison cost (for various pathkeys), and then adds orderings that might be useful for operations higher up in the plan (ORDER BY, etc.). Finally, it always keeps the ordering specified in the query, on the assumption the user might have additional insights. This introduces a new GUC enable_group_by_reordering, so that the optimization may be disabled if needed. The original patch was proposed by Teodor Sigaev, and later improved and reworked by Dmitry Dolgov. Reviews by a number of people, including me, Andrey Lepikhov, Claudio Freire, Ibrar Ahmed and Zhihong Yu. Author: Dmitry Dolgov, Teodor Sigaev, Tomas Vondra Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra, Andrey Lepikhov, Claudio Freire, Ibrar Ahmed, Zhihong Yu Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7c79e6a5-8597-74e8-0671-1c39d124c9d6%40sigaev.ru Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2Bq6zcW_4o2NC0zutLkOJPsFt80megSpX_dVRo6GK9PC-Jx_Ag%40mail.gmail.com	4 years ago
Bruce Momjian	27b77ecf9f	Update copyright for 2022 ... Backpatch-through: 10	4 years ago
Tom Lane	7645376774	Rename find_em_expr_usable_for_sorting_rel. ... I didn't particularly like this function name, as it fails to express what's going on. Also, returning the sort expression alone isn't too helpful --- typically, a caller would also need some other fields of the EquivalenceMember. But the sole caller really only needs a bool result, so let's make it "bool relation_can_be_sorted_early()". Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/91f3ec99-85a4-fa55-ea74-33f85a5c651f@swarm64.com	4 years ago
Tom Lane	3753982441	Fix planner failure in some cases of sorting by an aggregate. ... An oversight introduced by the incremental-sort patches caused "could not find pathkey item to sort" errors in some situations where a sort key involves an aggregate or window function. The basic problem here is that find_em_expr_usable_for_sorting_rel isn't properly modeling what prepare_sort_from_pathkeys will do later. Rather than hoping we can keep those functions in sync, let's refactor so that they actually share the code for identifying a suitable sort expression. With this refactoring, tlist.c's tlist_member_ignore_relabel is unused. I removed it in HEAD but left it in place in v13, in case any extensions are using it. Per report from Luc Vlaming. Back-patch to v13 where the problem arose. James Coleman and Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/91f3ec99-85a4-fa55-ea74-33f85a5c651f@swarm64.com	4 years ago
Tom Lane	55dc86eca7	Fix pull_varnos' miscomputation of relids set for a PlaceHolderVar. ... Previously, pull_varnos() took the relids of a PlaceHolderVar as being equal to the relids in its contents, but that fails to account for the possibility that we have to postpone evaluation of the PHV due to outer joins. This could result in a malformed plan. The known cases end up triggering the "failed to assign all NestLoopParams to plan nodes" sanity check in createplan.c, but other symptoms may be possible. The right value to use is the join level we actually intend to evaluate the PHV at. We can get that from the ph_eval_at field of the associated PlaceHolderInfo. However, there are some places that call pull_varnos() before the PlaceHolderInfos have been created; in that case, fall back to the conservative assumption that the PHV will be evaluated at its syntactic level. (In principle this might result in missing some legal optimization, but I'm not aware of any cases where it's an issue in practice.) Things are also a bit ticklish for calls occurring during deconstruct_jointree(), but AFAICS the ph_eval_at fields should have reached their final values by the time we need them. The main problem in making this work is that pull_varnos() has no way to get at the PlaceHolderInfos. We can fix that easily, if a bit tediously, in HEAD by passing it the planner "root" pointer. In the back branches that'd cause an unacceptable API/ABI break for extensions, so leave the existing entry points alone and add new ones with the additional parameter. (If an old entry point is called and encounters a PHV, it'll fall back to using the syntactic level, again possibly missing some valid optimization.) Back-patch to v12. The computation is surely also wrong before that, but it appears that we cannot reach a bad plan thanks to join order restrictions imposed on the subquery that the PlaceHolderVar came from. The error only became reachable when commit 4be058fe9 allowed trivial subqueries to be collapsed out completely, eliminating their join order restrictions. Per report from Stephan Springl. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/171041.1610849523@sss.pgh.pa.us	5 years ago
Bruce Momjian	ca3b37487b	Update copyright for 2021 ... Backpatch-through: 9.5	5 years ago
Tomas Vondra	86b7cca72d	Check parallel safety in generate_useful_gather_paths ... Commit ebb7ae839d ensured we ignore pathkeys with volatile expressions when considering adding a sort below a Gather Merge. Turns out we need to care about parallel safety of the pathkeys too, otherwise we might try sorting e.g. on results of a correlated subquery (as demonstrated by a report from Luis Roberto). Initial investigation by Tom Lane, patch by James Coleman. Backpatch to 13, where the code was instroduced (as part of Incremental Sort). Reported-by: Luis Roberto Author: James Coleman Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra Backpatch-through: 13 Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/622580997.37108180.1604080457319.JavaMail.zimbra%40siscobra.com.br Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8cK3g5CfLC4w7bs=hC0mSksZC=H5M8LSchj5e5OxpTAg@mail.gmail.com	5 years ago
Tomas Vondra	ebb7ae839d	Fix get_useful_pathkeys_for_relation for volatile expressions ... When considering Incremental Sort below a Gather Merge, we need to be a bit more careful when matching pathkeys to EC members. It's not enough to find a member whose Vars are all in the current relation's target; volatile expressions in particular need to be contained in the target, otherwise it's too early to use the pathkey. Reported-by: Jaime Casanova Author: James Coleman Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra Backpatch-through: 13, where the incremental sort code was added Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJGNTeNaxpXgBVcRhJX%2B2vSbq%2BF2kJqGBcvompmpvXb7pq%2BoFA%40mail.gmail.com	5 years ago
Tom Lane	ad1c36b070	Fix foreign-key selectivity estimation in the presence of constants. ... get_foreign_key_join_selectivity() looks for join clauses that equate the two sides of the FK constraint. However, if we have a query like "WHERE fktab.a = pktab.a and fktab.a = 1", it won't find any such join clause, because equivclass.c replaces the given clauses with "fktab.a = 1 and pktab.a = 1", which can be enforced at the scan level, leaving nothing to be done for column "a" at the join level. We can fix that expectation without much trouble, but then a new problem arises: applying the foreign-key-based selectivity rule produces a rowcount underestimate, because we're effectively double-counting the selectivity of the "fktab.a = 1" clause. So we have to cancel that selectivity out of the estimate. To fix, refactor process_implied_equality() so that it can pass back the new RestrictInfo to its callers in equivclass.c, allowing the generated "fktab.a = 1" clause to be saved in the EquivalenceClass's ec_derives list. Then it's not much trouble to dig out the relevant RestrictInfo when we need to adjust an FK selectivity estimate. (While at it, we can also remove the expensive use of initialize_mergeclause_eclasses() to set up the new RestrictInfo's left_ec and right_ec pointers. The equivclass.c code can set those basically for free.) This seems like clearly a bug fix, but I'm hesitant to back-patch it, first because there's some API/ABI risk for extensions and second because we're usually loath to destabilize plan choices in stable branches. Per report from Sigrid Ehrenreich. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1019549.1603770457@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/AM6PR02MB5287A0ADD936C1FA80973E72AB190@AM6PR02MB5287.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com	5 years ago
Tomas Vondra	ba3e76cc57	Consider Incremental Sort paths at additional places ... Commit d2d8a229bc introduced Incremental Sort, but it was considered only in create_ordered_paths() as an alternative to regular Sort. There are many other places that require sorted input and might benefit from considering Incremental Sort too. This patch modifies a number of those places, but not all. The concern is that just adding Incremental Sort to any place that already adds Sort may increase the number of paths considered, negatively affecting planning time, without any benefit. So we've taken a more conservative approach, based on analysis of which places do affect a set of queries that did seem practical. This means some less common queries may not benefit from Incremental Sort yet. Author: Tomas Vondra Reviewed-by: James Coleman Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfds1waRZ=NOmueYq0sx1ZSCnt+5QJvizT8ndT2=etZEeAQ@mail.gmail.com	6 years ago
Tomas Vondra	d2d8a229bc	Implement Incremental Sort ... Incremental Sort is an optimized variant of multikey sort for cases when the input is already sorted by a prefix of the requested sort keys. For example when the relation is already sorted by (key1, key2) and we need to sort it by (key1, key2, key3) we can simply split the input rows into groups having equal values in (key1, key2), and only sort/compare the remaining column key3. This has a number of benefits: - Reduced memory consumption, because only a single group (determined by values in the sorted prefix) needs to be kept in memory. This may also eliminate the need to spill to disk. - Lower startup cost, because Incremental Sort produce results after each prefix group, which is beneficial for plans where startup cost matters (like for example queries with LIMIT clause). We consider both Sort and Incremental Sort, and decide based on costing. The implemented algorithm operates in two different modes: - Fetching a minimum number of tuples without check of equality on the prefix keys, and sorting on all columns when safe. - Fetching all tuples for a single prefix group and then sorting by comparing only the remaining (non-prefix) keys. We always start in the first mode, and employ a heuristic to switch into the second mode if we believe it's beneficial - the goal is to minimize the number of unnecessary comparions while keeping memory consumption below work_mem. This is a very old patch series. The idea was originally proposed by Alexander Korotkov back in 2013, and then revived in 2017. In 2018 the patch was taken over by James Coleman, who wrote and rewrote most of the current code. There were many reviewers/contributors since 2013 - I've done my best to pick the most active ones, and listed them in this commit message. Author: James Coleman, Alexander Korotkov Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra, Andreas Karlsson, Marti Raudsepp, Peter Geoghegan, Robert Haas, Thomas Munro, Antonin Houska, Andres Freund, Alexander Kuzmenkov Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdscOX5an71nHd8WSUH6GNOCf=V7wgDaTXdDd9=goN-gfA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfds1waRZ=NOmueYq0sx1ZSCnt+5QJvizT8ndT2=etZEeAQ@mail.gmail.com	6 years ago
Tom Lane	0568e7a2a4	Cosmetic improvements for code related to partitionwise join. ... Move have_partkey_equi_join and match_expr_to_partition_keys to relnode.c, since they're used only there. Refactor build_joinrel_partition_info to split out the code that fills the joinrel's partition key lists; this doesn't have any non-cosmetic impact, but it seems like a useful separation of concerns. Improve assorted nearby comments. Amit Langote, with a little further editorialization by me Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqG2WVUGmLJqtR0tPFhniO=H=9qQ+Z3L_ZC+Y3-EVQHFGg@mail.gmail.com	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
Tom Lane	529ebb20aa	Generate EquivalenceClass members for partitionwise child join rels. ... Commit d25ea0127 got rid of what I thought were entirely unnecessary derived child expressions in EquivalenceClasses for EC members that mention multiple baserels. But it turns out that some of the child expressions that code created are necessary for partitionwise joins, else we fail to find matching pathkeys for Sort nodes. (This happens only for certain shapes of the resulting plan; it may be that partitionwise aggregation is also necessary to show the failure, though I'm not sure of that.) Reverting that commit entirely would be quite painful performance-wise for large partition sets. So instead, add code that explicitly generates child expressions that match only partitionwise child join rels we have actually generated. Per report from Justin Pryzby. (Amit Langote noticed the problem earlier, though it's not clear if he recognized then that it could result in a planner error, not merely failure to exploit partitionwise join, in the code as-committed.) Back-patch to v12 where commit d25ea0127 came in. Amit Langote, with lots of kibitzing from me Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqG2WVUGmLJqtR0tPFhniO=H=9qQ+Z3L_ZC+Y3-EVQHFGg@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191011143703.GN10470@telsasoft.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
Tom Lane	959d00e9db	Use Append rather than MergeAppend for scanning ordered partitions. ... If we need ordered output from a scan of a partitioned table, but the ordering matches the partition ordering, then we don't need to use a MergeAppend to combine the pre-ordered per-partition scan results: a plain Append will produce the same results. This both saves useless comparison work inside the MergeAppend proper, and allows us to start returning tuples after istarting up just the first child node not all of them. However, all is not peaches and cream, because if some of the child nodes have high startup costs then there will be big discontinuities in the tuples-returned-versus-elapsed-time curve. The planner's cost model cannot handle that (yet, anyway). If we model the Append's startup cost as being just the first child's startup cost, we may drastically underestimate the cost of fetching slightly more tuples than are available from the first child. Since we've had bad experiences with over-optimistic choices of "fast start" plans for ORDER BY LIMIT queries, that seems scary. As a klugy workaround, set the startup cost estimate for an ordered Append to be the sum of its children's startup costs (as MergeAppend would). This doesn't really describe reality, but it's less likely to cause a bad plan choice than an underestimated startup cost would. In practice, the cases where we really care about this optimization will have child plans that are IndexScans with zero startup cost, so that the overly conservative estimate is still just zero. David Rowley, reviewed by Julien Rouhaud and Antonin Houska Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f-hAqhPLRk_RaSFTgYxd=Tz5hA7kQ2h4-DhJufQk8TGuw@mail.gmail.com	7 years ago
Tom Lane	1d33858406	Fix handling of targetlist SRFs when scan/join relation is known empty. ... When we introduced separate ProjectSetPath nodes for application of set-returning functions in v10, we inadvertently broke some cases where we're supposed to recognize that the result of a subquery is known to be empty (contain zero rows). That's because IS_DUMMY_REL was just looking for a childless AppendPath without allowing for a ProjectSetPath being possibly stuck on top. In itself, this didn't do anything much worse than produce slightly worse plans for some corner cases. Then in v11, commit 11cf92f6e rearranged things to allow the scan/join targetlist to be applied directly to partial paths before they get gathered. But it inserted a short-circuit path for dummy relations that was a little too short: it failed to insert a ProjectSetPath node at all for a targetlist containing set-returning functions, resulting in bogus "set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set" errors, as reported in bug #15669 from Madelaine Thibaut. The best way to fix this mess seems to be to reimplement IS_DUMMY_REL so that it drills down through any ProjectSetPath nodes that might be there (and it seems like we'd better allow for ProjectionPath as well). While we're at it, make it look at rel->pathlist not cheapest_total_path, so that it gives the right answer independently of whether set_cheapest has been done lately. That dependency looks pretty shaky in the context of code like apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths, and even if it's not broken today it'd certainly bite us at some point. (Nastily, unsafe use of the old coding would almost always work; the hazard comes down to possibly looking through a dangling pointer, and only once in a blue moon would you find something there that resulted in the wrong answer.) It now looks like it was a mistake for IS_DUMMY_REL to be a macro: if there are any extensions using it, they'll continue to use the old inadequate logic until they're recompiled, after which they'll fail to load into server versions predating this fix. Hopefully there are few such extensions. Having fixed IS_DUMMY_REL, the special path for dummy rels in apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths is unnecessary as well as being wrong, so we can just drop it. Also change a few places that were testing for partitioned-ness of a planner relation but not using IS_PARTITIONED_REL for the purpose; that seems unsafe as well as inconsistent, plus it required an ugly hack in apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths. In passing, save a few cycles in apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths by skipping processing of pre-existing paths for partitioned rels, and do some cosmetic cleanup and comment adjustment in that function. I renamed IS_DUMMY_PATH to IS_DUMMY_APPEND with the intention of breaking any code that might be using it, since in almost every case that would be wrong; IS_DUMMY_REL is what to be using instead. In HEAD, also make set_dummy_rel_pathlist static (since it's no longer used from outside allpaths.c), and delete is_dummy_plan, since it's no longer used anywhere. Back-patch as appropriate into v11 and v10. Tom Lane and Julien Rouhaud Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15669-02fb3296cca26203@postgresql.org	7 years ago
Tom Lane	1a8d5afb0d	Refactor the representation of indexable clauses in IndexPaths. ... In place of three separate but interrelated lists (indexclauses, indexquals, and indexqualcols), an IndexPath now has one list "indexclauses" of IndexClause nodes. This holds basically the same information as before, but in a more useful format: in particular, there is now a clear connection between an indexclause (an original restriction clause from WHERE or JOIN/ON) and the indexquals (directly usable index conditions) derived from it. We also change the ground rules a bit by mandating that clause commutation, if needed, be done up-front so that what is stored in the indexquals list is always directly usable as an index condition. This gets rid of repeated re-determination of which side of the clause is the indexkey during costing and plan generation, as well as repeated lookups of the commutator operator. To minimize the added up-front cost, the typical case of commuting a plain OpExpr is handled by a new special-purpose function commute_restrictinfo(). For RowCompareExprs, generating the new clause properly commuted to begin with is not really any more complex than before, it's just different --- and we can save doing that work twice, as the pretty-klugy original implementation did. Tracking the connection between original and derived clauses lets us also track explicitly whether the derived clauses are an exact or lossy translation of the original. This provides a cheap solution to getting rid of unnecessary rechecks of boolean index clauses, which previously seemed like it'd be more expensive than it was worth. Another pleasant (IMO) side-effect is that EXPLAIN now always shows index clauses with the indexkey on the left; this seems less confusing. This commit leaves expand_indexqual_conditions() and some related functions in a slightly messy state. I didn't bother to change them any more than minimally necessary to work with the new data structure, because all that code is going to be refactored out of existence in a follow-on patch. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22182.1549124950@sss.pgh.pa.us	7 years ago
Tom Lane	fa2cf164aa	Rename nodes/relation.h to nodes/pathnodes.h. ... The old name of this file was never a very good indication of what it was for. Now that there's also access/relation.h, we have a potential confusion hazard as well, so let's rename it to something more apropos. Per discussion, "pathnodes.h" is reasonable, since a good fraction of the file is Path node definitions. While at it, tweak a couple of other headers that were gratuitously importing relation.h into modules that don't need it. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7719.1548688728@sss.pgh.pa.us	7 years ago
Bruce Momjian	97c39498e5	Update copyright for 2019 ... Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4	7 years ago
Tom Lane	bdf46af748	Post-feature-freeze pgindent run. ... Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15719.1523984266@sss.pgh.pa.us	8 years ago
Tom Lane	c792c7db41	Change more places to be less trusting of RestrictInfo.is_pushed_down. ... On further reflection, commit e5d83995e didn't go far enough: pretty much everywhere in the planner that examines a clause's is_pushed_down flag ought to be changed to use the more complicated behavior where we also check the clause's required_relids. Otherwise we could make incorrect decisions about whether, say, a clause is safe to use as a hash clause. Some (many?) of these places are safe as-is, either because they are never reached while considering a parameterized path, or because there are additional checks that would reject a pushed-down clause anyway. However, it seems smarter to just code them all the same way rather than rely on easily-broken reasoning of that sort. In support of that, invent a new macro RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN that should be used in place of direct tests on the is_pushed_down flag. Like the previous patch, back-patch to all supported branches. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f8128b11-c5bf-3539-48cd-234178b2314d@proxel.se	8 years ago
Robert Haas	e2f1eb0ee3	Implement partition-wise grouping/aggregation. ... If the partition keys of input relation are part of the GROUP BY clause, all the rows belonging to a given group come from a single partition. This allows aggregation/grouping over a partitioned relation to be broken down * into aggregation/grouping on each partition. This should be no worse, and often better, than the normal approach. If the GROUP BY clause does not contain all the partition keys, we can still perform partial aggregation for each partition and then finalize aggregation after appending the partial results. This is less certain to be a win, but it's still useful. Jeevan Chalke, Ashutosh Bapat, Robert Haas. The larger patch series of which this patch is a part was also reviewed and tested by Antonin Houska, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar, Konstantin Knizhnik, Pascal Legrand, and Rafia Sabih. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM2+6=V64_xhstVHie0Rz=KPEQnLJMZt_e314P0jaT_oJ9MR8A@mail.gmail.com	8 years ago
Robert Haas	3bf05e096b	Add a new upper planner relation for partially-aggregated results. ... Up until now, we've abused grouped_rel->partial_pathlist as a place to store partial paths that have been partially aggregate, but that's really not correct, because a partial path for a relation is supposed to be one which produces the correct results with the addition of only a Gather or Gather Merge node, and these paths also require a Finalize Aggregate step. Instead, add a new partially_group_rel which can hold either partial paths (which need to be gathered and then have aggregation finalized) or non-partial paths (which only need to have aggregation finalized). This allows us to reuse generate_gather_paths for partially_grouped_rel instead of writing new code, so that this patch actually basically no net new code while making things cleaner, simplifying things for pending patches for partition-wise aggregate. Robert Haas and Jeevan Chalke. The larger patch series of which this patch is a part was also reviewed and tested by Antonin Houska, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar, Konstantin Knizhnik, Pascal Legrand, Rafia Sabih, and me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobrzFYS3+U8a_BCy3-hOvh5UyJbC18rEcYehxhpw5=ETA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZyQEjdBNuoG9-wC5GQ5GrO4544Myo13dVptvx+uLg9uQ@mail.gmail.com	8 years ago
Tom Lane	9afd513df0	Fix planner failures with overlapping mergejoin clauses in an outer join. ... Given overlapping or partially redundant join clauses, for example t1 JOIN t2 ON t1.a = t2.x AND t1.b = t2.x the planner's EquivalenceClass machinery will ordinarily refactor the clauses as "t1.a = t1.b AND t1.a = t2.x", so that join processing doesn't see multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass in a list of join equality clauses. However, if the join is outer, it's incorrect to derive a restriction clause on the outer side from the join conditions, so the clause refactoring does not happen and we end up with overlapping join conditions. The code that attempted to deal with such cases had several subtle bugs, which could result in "left and right pathkeys do not match in mergejoin" or "outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses" planner errors, if the selected join plan type was a mergejoin. (It does not appear that any actually incorrect plan could have been emitted.) The core of the problem really was failure to recognize that the outer and inner relations' pathkeys have different relationships to the mergeclause list. A join's mergeclause list is constructed by reference to the outer pathkeys, so it will always be ordered the same as the outer pathkeys, but this cannot be presumed true for the inner pathkeys. If the inner sides of the mergeclauses contain multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass ({t2.x} in the above example) then a simplistic rendering of the required inner sort order is like "ORDER BY t2.x, t2.x", but the pathkey machinery recognizes that the second sort column is redundant and throws it away. The mergejoin planning code failed to account for that behavior properly. One error was to try to generate cut-down versions of the mergeclause list from cut-down versions of the inner pathkeys in the same way as the initial construction of the mergeclause list from the outer pathkeys was done; this could lead to choosing a mergeclause list that fails to match the outer pathkeys. The other problem was that the pathkey cross-checking code in create_mergejoin_plan treated the inner and outer pathkey lists identically, whereas actually the expectations for them must be different. That led to false "pathkeys do not match" failures in some cases, and in principle could have led to failure to detect bogus plans in other cases, though there is no indication that such bogus plans could be generated. Reported by Alexander Kuzmenkov, who also reviewed this patch. This has been broken for years (back to around 8.3 according to my testing), so back-patch to all supported branches. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5dad9160-4632-0e47-e120-8e2082000c01@postgrespro.ru	8 years ago
Peter Eisentraut	2fb1abaeb0	Rename enable_partition_wise_join to enable_partitionwise_join ... Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ad24e4f4-6481-066e-e3fb-6ef4a3121882%402ndquadrant.com	8 years ago
Robert Haas	935dee9ad5	Mark assorted GUC variables as PGDLLIMPORT. ... This makes life easier for extension authors. Metin Doslu Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAL1dPcfa45o1dC-c4t-48v0OZE6oy4ChJhObrtkK8mzNfXqDTA@mail.gmail.com	8 years ago
Robert Haas	9da0cc3528	Support parallel btree index builds. ... To make this work, tuplesort.c and logtape.c must also support parallelism, so this patch adds that infrastructure and then applies it to the particular case of parallel btree index builds. Testing to date shows that this can often be 2-3x faster than a serial index build. The model for deciding how many workers to use is fairly primitive at present, but it's better than not having the feature. We can refine it as we get more experience. Peter Geoghegan with some help from Rushabh Lathia. While Heikki Linnakangas is not an author of this patch, he wrote other patches without which this feature would not have been possible, and therefore the release notes should possibly credit him as an author of this feature. Reviewed by Claudio Freire, Heikki Linnakangas, Thomas Munro, Tels, Amit Kapila, me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM3SWZQKM=Pzc=CAHzRixKjp2eO5Q0Jg1SoFQqeXFQ647JiwqQ@mail.gmail.com Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=AxWqDoVvGU7dq856S4r6sJAj6DBn7VMtigkB33N5eyg@mail.gmail.com	8 years ago
Bruce Momjian	9d4649ca49	Update copyright for 2018 ... Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3	8 years ago
Tom Lane	8ec5429e2f	Reduce "X = X" to "X IS NOT NULL", if it's easy to do so. ... If the operator is a strict btree equality operator, and X isn't volatile, then the clause must yield true for any non-null value of X, or null if X is null. At top level of a WHERE clause, we can ignore the distinction between false and null results, so it's valid to simplify the clause to "X IS NOT NULL". This is a useful improvement mainly because we'll get a far better selectivity estimate in most cases. Because such cases seldom arise in well-written queries, it is unappetizing to expend a lot of planner cycles looking for them ... but it turns out that there's a place we can shoehorn this in practically for free, because equivclass.c already has to detect and reject candidate equivalences of the form X = X. That doesn't catch every place that it would be valid to simplify to X IS NOT NULL, but it catches the typical case. Working harder doesn't seem justified. Patch by me, reviewed by Petr Jelinek Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMjNa7cC4X9YR-vAJS-jSYCajhRDvJQnN7m2sLH1wLh-_Z2bsw@mail.gmail.com	8 years ago
Robert Haas	f49842d1ee	Basic partition-wise join functionality. ... Instead of joining two partitioned tables in their entirety we can, if it is an equi-join on the partition keys, join the matching partitions individually. This involves teaching the planner about "other join" rels, which are related to regular join rels in the same way that other member rels are related to baserels. This can use significantly more CPU time and memory than regular join planning, because there may now be a set of "other" rels not only for every base relation but also for every join relation. In most practical cases, this probably shouldn't be a problem, because (1) it's probably unusual to join many tables each with many partitions using the partition keys for all joins and (2) if you do that scenario then you probably have a big enough machine to handle the increased memory cost of planning and (3) the resulting plan is highly likely to be better, so what you spend in planning you'll make up on the execution side. All the same, for now, turn this feature off by default. Currently, we can only perform joins between two tables whose partitioning schemes are absolutely identical. It would be nice to cope with other scenarios, such as extra partitions on one side or the other with no match on the other side, but that will have to wait for a future patch. Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed and tested by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Amit Langote, Rafia Sabih, Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, Antonin Houska, Amit Khandekar, and by me. A few final adjustments by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=EaDTSA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRcitjfrULr5jfuKWRPsGUX0LQ0k8-yG0Qw2+1LBGNpMdw@mail.gmail.com	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	e3860ffa4d	Initial pgindent run with pg_bsd_indent version 2.0. ... The new indent version includes numerous fixes thanks to Piotr Stefaniak. The main changes visible in this commit are: * Nicer formatting of function-pointer declarations. * No longer unexpectedly removes spaces in expressions using casts, sizeof, or offsetof. * No longer wants to add a space in "struct structname *varname", as well as some similar cases for const- or volatile-qualified pointers. * Declarations using PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY are formatted more nicely. * Fixes bug where comments following declarations were sometimes placed with no space separating them from the code. * Fixes some odd decisions for comments following case labels. * Fixes some cases where comments following code were indented to less than the expected column 33. On the less good side, it now tends to put more whitespace around typedef names that are not listed in typedefs.list. This might encourage us to put more effort into typedef name collection; it's not really a bug in indent itself. There are more changes coming after this round, having to do with comment indentation and alignment of lines appearing within parentheses. I wanted to limit the size of the diffs to something that could be reviewed without one's eyes completely glazing over, so it seemed better to split up the changes as much as practical. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us	8 years ago
Bruce Momjian	a6fd7b7a5f	Post-PG 10 beta1 pgindent run ... perltidy run not included.	8 years ago
Robert Haas	2609e91fcf	Fix regression in parallel planning against inheritance tables. ... Commit 51ee6f3160 accidentally changed the behavior around inheritance hierarchies; before, we always considered parallel paths even for very small inheritance children, because otherwise an inheritance hierarchy with even one small child wouldn't be eligible for parallelism. That exception was inadverently removed; put it back. In passing, also adjust the degree-of-parallelism comptuation for index-only scans not to consider the number of heap pages fetched. Otherwise, we'll avoid parallel index-only scans on tables that are mostly all-visible, which isn't especially logical. Robert Haas and Amit Kapila, per a report from Ashutosh Sharma. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAE9k0PmgSoOHRd60SHu09aRVTHRSs8s6pmyhJKWHxWw9C_x+XA@mail.gmail.com	9 years ago
Robert Haas	f35742ccb7	Support parallel bitmap heap scans. ... The index is scanned by a single process, but then all cooperating processes can iterate jointly over the resulting set of heap blocks. In the future, we might also want to support using a parallel bitmap index scan to set up for a parallel bitmap heap scan, but that's a job for another day. Dilip Kumar, with some corrections and cosmetic changes by me. The larger patch set of which this is a part has been reviewed and tested by (at least) Andres Freund, Amit Khandekar, Tushar Ahuja, Rafia Sabih, Haribabu Kommi, Thomas Munro, and me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFiTN-uc4=0WxRGfCzs-xfkMYcSEWUC-Fon6thkJGjkh9i=13A@mail.gmail.com	9 years ago
Robert Haas	a71f10189d	Preparatory refactoring for parallel merge join support. ... Extract the logic used by hash_inner_and_outer into a separate function, get_cheapest_parallel_safe_total_inner, so that it can also be used to plan parallel merge joins. Also, add a require_parallel_safe argument to the existing function get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys, because parallel merge join needs to find the cheapest path for a given set of pathkeys that is parallel-safe, not just the cheapest one overall. Patch by me, reviewed by Dilip Kumar. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYOv+dFK0MWW6366dFj_xTnohQfoBDrHyB7d1oZhrgPjA@mail.gmail.com	9 years ago
Robert Haas	5262f7a4fc	Add optimizer and executor support for parallel index scans. ... In combination with 569174f1be, which taught the btree AM how to perform parallel index scans, this allows parallel index scan plans on btree indexes. This infrastructure should be general enough to support parallel index scans for other index AMs as well, if someone updates them to support parallel scans. Amit Kapila, reviewed and tested by Anastasia Lubennikova, Tushar Ahuja, and Haribabu Kommi, and me.	9 years ago
Robert Haas	51ee6f3160	Replace min_parallel_relation_size with two new GUCs. ... When min_parallel_relation_size was added, the only supported type of parallel scan was a parallel sequential scan, but there are pending patches for parallel index scan, parallel index-only scan, and parallel bitmap heap scan. Those patches introduce two new types of complications: first, what's relevant is not really the total size of the relation but the portion of it that we will scan; and second, index pages and heap pages shouldn't necessarily be treated in exactly the same way. Typically, the number of index pages will be quite small, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a parallel index scan can't pay off. Therefore, we introduce min_parallel_table_scan_size, which works out a degree of parallelism for scans based on the number of table pages that will be scanned (and which is therefore equivalent to min_parallel_relation_size for parallel sequential scans) and also min_parallel_index_scan_size which can be used to work out a degree of parallelism based on the number of index pages that will be scanned. Amit Kapila and Robert Haas Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1KowGSYYVpd2qPpaPPA5R90r++QwDFbrRECTE9H_HvpOg@mail.gmail.com Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+TnM4pXQbvn7OXqam+k_HZqb0ROZUMxOiL6DWJYCyYow@mail.gmail.com	9 years ago
Tom Lane	0777f7a2e8	Fix matching of boolean index columns to sort ordering. ... Normally, if we have a WHERE clause like "indexcol = constant", the planner will figure out that that index column can be ignored when determining whether the index has a desired sort ordering. But this failed to work for boolean index columns, because a condition like "boolcol = true" is canonicalized to just "boolcol" which does not give rise to an EquivalenceClass. Add a check to allow the same type of deduction to be made in this case too. Per a complaint from Dima Pavlov. Arguably this is a bug, but given the limited impact and the small number of complaints so far, I won't risk destabilizing plans in stable branches by back-patching. Patch by me, reviewed by Michael Paquier Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1788.1481605684@sss.pgh.pa.us	9 years ago
Bruce Momjian	1d25779284	Update copyright via script for 2017	9 years ago
Tom Lane	100340e2dc	Restore foreign-key-aware estimation of join relation sizes. ... This patch provides a new implementation of the logic added by commit 137805f89 and later removed by 77ba61080. It differs from the original primarily in expending much less effort per joinrel in large queries, which it accomplishes by doing most of the matching work once per query not once per joinrel. Hopefully, it's also less buggy and better commented. The never-documented enable_fkey_estimates GUC remains gone. There remains work to be done to make the selectivity estimates account for nulls in FK referencing columns; but that was true of the original patch as well. We may be able to address this point later in beta. In the meantime, any error should be in the direction of overestimating rather than underestimating joinrel sizes, which seems like the direction we want to err in. Tomas Vondra and Tom Lane Discussion: <31041.1465069446@sss.pgh.pa.us>	9 years ago