27 Commits (3ed2005ff595d349276e5b2edeca1a8100b08c87)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Andres Freund	2742c45080	expression eval: Reduce number of steps for agg transition invocations. ... Do so by combining the various steps that are part of aggregate transition function invocation into one larger step. As some of the current steps are only necessary for some aggregates, have one variant of the aggregate transition step for each possible combination. To avoid further manual copies of code in the different transition step implementations, move most of the code into helper functions marked as "always inline". The benefit of this change is an increase in performance when aggregating lots of rows. This comes in part due to the reduced number of indirect jumps due to the reduced number of steps, and in part by reducing redundant setup code across steps. This mainly benefits interpreted execution, but the code generated by JIT is also improved a bit. As a nice side-effect it also ends up making the code a bit simpler. A small additional optimization is removing the need to set aggstate->curaggcontext before calling ExecAggInitGroup, choosing to instead passign curaggcontext as an argument. It was, in contrast to other aggregate related functions, only needed to fetch a memory context to copy the transition value into. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191023163849.sosqbfs5yenocez3@alap3.anarazel.de https://postgr.es/m/5c371df7cee903e8cd4c685f90c6c72086d3a2dc.camel@j-davis.com	6 years ago
Andres Freund	1fdb7f9789	expression eval: Don't redundantly keep track of AggState. ... It's already tracked via ExprState->parent, so we don't need to also include it in ExprEvalStep. When that code originally was written ExprState->parent didn't exist, but it since has been introduced in 6719b238e8. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191023163849.sosqbfs5yenocez3@alap3.anarazel.de	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
Michael Paquier	8548ddc61b	Fix inconsistencies and typos in the tree, take 9 ... This addresses more issues with code comments, variable names and unreferenced variables. Author: Alexander Lakhin Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7ab243e0-116d-3e44-d120-76b3df7abefd@gmail.com	7 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	7 years ago
Alvaro Herrera	558d77f20e	Renaming for new subscripting mechanism ... Over at patch https://commitfest.postgresql.org/21/1062/ Dmitry wants to introduce a more generic subscription mechanism, which allows subscripting not only arrays but also other object types such as JSONB. That functionality is introduced in a largish invasive patch, out of which this internal renaming patch was extracted. Author: Dmitry Dolgov Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, Arthur Zakirov Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+q6zcUK4EqPAu7XRRO5CCjMwhz5zvg+rfWuLzVoxp_5sKS6=w@mail.gmail.com	7 years ago
Andres Freund	a9c35cf85c	Change function call information to be variable length. ... Before this change FunctionCallInfoData, the struct arguments etc for V1 function calls are stored in, always had space for FUNC_MAX_ARGS/100 arguments, storing datums and their nullness in two arrays. For nearly every function call 100 arguments is far more than needed, therefore wasting memory. Arg and argnull being two separate arrays also guarantees that to access a single argument, two cachelines have to be touched. Change the layout so there's a single variable-length array with pairs of value / isnull. That drastically reduces memory consumption for most function calls (on x86-64 a two argument function now uses 64bytes, previously 936 bytes), and makes it very likely that argument value and its nullness are on the same cacheline. Arguments are stored in a new NullableDatum struct, which, due to padding, needs more memory per argument than before. But as usually far fewer arguments are stored, and individual arguments are cheaper to access, that's still a clear win. It's likely that there's other places where conversion to NullableDatum arrays would make sense, e.g. TupleTableSlots, but that's for another commit. Because the function call information is now variable-length allocations have to take the number of arguments into account. For heap allocations that can be done with SizeForFunctionCallInfoData(), for on-stack allocations there's a new LOCAL_FCINFO(name, nargs) macro that helps to allocate an appropriately sized and aligned variable. Some places with stack allocation function call information don't know the number of arguments at compile time, and currently variably sized stack allocations aren't allowed in postgres. Therefore allow for FUNC_MAX_ARGS space in these cases. They're not that common, so for now that seems acceptable. Because of the need to allocate FunctionCallInfo of the appropriate size, older extensions may need to update their code. To avoid subtle breakages, the FunctionCallInfoData struct has been renamed to FunctionCallInfoBaseData. Most code only references FunctionCallInfo, so that shouldn't cause much collateral damage. This change is also a prerequisite for more efficient expression JIT compilation (by allocating the function call information on the stack, allowing LLVM to optimize it away); previously the size of the call information caused problems inside LLVM's optimizer. Author: Andres Freund Reviewed-By: Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180605172952.x34m5uz6ju6enaem@alap3.anarazel.de	7 years ago
Bruce Momjian	97c39498e5	Update copyright for 2019 ... Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4	7 years ago
Andres Freund	675af5c01e	Compute information about EEOP_*_FETCHSOME at expression init time. ... Previously this information was computed when JIT compiling an expression. But the information is useful for assertions in the non-JIT case too (for assertions), therefore it makes sense to move it. This will, in a followup commit, allow to treat different slot types differently. E.g. for virtual slots there's no need to generate a JIT function to deform the slot. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de	7 years ago
Andres Freund	b84a6dafbf	Move EEOP_*_SYSVAR evaluation out of line. ... This mainly de-duplicates code. As evaluating a system variable isn't the hottest path and the current inline implementation ends up calling out to an external function anyway, this is OK from a performance POV. The main motivation for de-duplicating is the upcoming slot abstraction work, after which there's not guaranteed to be a HeapTuple backing the slot. Author: Andres Freund, Amit Khandekar Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de	7 years ago
Tom Lane	1f4a920b73	Fix failure with initplans used conditionally during EvalPlanQual rechecks. ... The EvalPlanQual machinery assumes that any initplans (that is, uncorrelated sub-selects) used during an EPQ recheck would have already been evaluated during the main query; this is implicit in the fact that execPlan pointers are not copied into the EPQ estate's es_param_exec_vals. But it's possible for that assumption to fail, if the initplan is only reached conditionally. For example, a sub-select inside a CASE expression could be reached during a recheck when it had not been previously, if the CASE test depends on a column that was just updated. This bug is old, appearing to date back to my rewrite of EvalPlanQual in commit 9f2ee8f28, but was not detected until Kyle Samson reported a case. To fix, force all not-yet-evaluated initplans used within the EPQ plan subtree to be evaluated at the start of the recheck, before entering the EPQ environment. This could be inefficient, if such an initplan is expensive and goes unused again during the recheck --- but that's piling one layer of improbability atop another. It doesn't seem worth adding more complexity to prevent that, at least not in the back branches. It was convenient to use the new-in-v11 ExecEvalParamExecParams function to implement this, but I didn't like either its name or the specifics of its API, so revise that. Back-patch all the way. Rather than rewrite the patch to avoid depending on bms_next_member() in the oldest branches, I chose to back-patch that function into 9.4 and 9.3. (This isn't the first time back-patches have needed that, and it exhausted my patience.) I also chose to back-patch some test cases added by commits 71404af2a and 342a1ffa2 into 9.4 and 9.3, so that the 9.x versions of eval-plan-qual.spec are all the same. Andrew Gierth diagnosed the problem and contributed the added test cases, though the actual code changes are by me. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/A033A40A-B234-4324-BE37-272279F7B627@tripadvisor.com	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
Andres Freund	32af96b2b1	JIT tuple deforming in LLVM JIT provider. ... Performing JIT compilation for deforming gains performance benefits over unJITed deforming from compile-time knowledge of the tuple descriptor. Fixed column widths, NOT NULLness, etc can be taken advantage of. Right now the JITed deforming is only used when deforming tuples as part of expression evaluation (and obviously only if the descriptor is known). It's likely to be beneficial in other cases, too. By default tuple deforming is JITed whenever an expression is JIT compiled. There's a separate boolean GUC controlling it, but that's expected to be primarily useful for development and benchmarking. Docs will follow in a later commit containing docs for the whole JIT feature. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de	8 years ago
Andres Freund	4c0000b839	Handle EEOP_FUNCEXPR_[STRICT_]FUSAGE out of line. ... This isn't a very common op, and it doesn't seem worth duplicating for JIT. Author: Andres Freund	8 years ago
Andres Freund	bf6c614a2f	Do execGrouping.c via expression eval machinery, take two. ... This has a performance benefit on own, although not hugely so. The primary benefit is that it will allow for to JIT tuple deforming and comparator invocations. Large parts of this were previously committed (773aec7aa), but the commit contained an omission around cross-type comparisons and was thus reverted. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171129080934.amqqkke2zjtekd4t@alap3.anarazel.de	8 years ago
Andres Freund	2a41507dab	Revert "Do execGrouping.c via expression eval machinery." ... This reverts commit 773aec7aa9. There's an unresolved issue in the reverted commit: It only creates one comparator function, but in for the nodeSubplan.c case we need more (c.f. FindTupleHashEntry vs LookupTupleHashEntry calls in nodeSubplan.c). This isn't too difficult to fix, but it's not entirely trivial either. The fact that the issue only causes breakage on 32bit systems shows that the current test coverage isn't that great. To avoid turning half the buildfarm red till those two issues are addressed, revert.	8 years ago
Andres Freund	773aec7aa9	Do execGrouping.c via expression eval machinery. ... This has a performance benefit on own, although not hugely so. The primary benefit is that it will allow for to JIT tuple deforming and comparator invocations. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171129080934.amqqkke2zjtekd4t@alap3.anarazel.de	8 years ago
Andres Freund	69c3936a14	Expression evaluation based aggregate transition invocation. ... Previously aggregate transition and combination functions were invoked by special case code in nodeAgg.c, evaluating input and filters separately using the expression evaluation machinery. That turns out to not be great for performance for several reasons: - repeated expression evaluations have some cost - the transition functions invocations are poorly predicted, as commonly there are multiple aggregates in a query, resulting in the same call-stack invoking different functions. - filter and input computation had to be done separately - the special case code made it hard to implement JITing of the whole transition function invocation Address this by building one large expression that computes input, evaluates filters, and invokes transition functions. This leads to moderate speedups in queries bottlenecked by aggregate computations, and enables large speedups for similar cases once JITing is done. There's potential for further improvement: - It'd be nice if we could simplify the somewhat expensive aggstate->all_pergroups lookups. - right now there's still an advance_transition_function invocation in nodeAgg.c, leading to some code duplication. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de	8 years ago
Bruce Momjian	9d4649ca49	Update copyright for 2018 ... Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3	8 years ago
Andres Freund	b40933101c	Perform slot validity checks in a separate pass over expression. ... This reduces code duplication a bit, but the primary benefit that it makes JITing expression evaluation easier. When doing so we can't, as previously done in the interpreted case, really change opcode without recompiling. Nor dow we just carry around unnecessary branches to avoid re-checking over and over. As a minor side-effect this makes ExecEvalStepOp() O(log(N)) rather than O(N). Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de	8 years ago
Tom Lane	6719b238e8	Rearrange execution of PARAM_EXTERN Params for plpgsql's benefit. ... This patch does three interrelated things: * Create a new expression execution step type EEOP_PARAM_CALLBACK and add the infrastructure needed for add-on modules to generate that. As discussed, the best control mechanism for that seems to be to add another hook function to ParamListInfo, which will be called by ExecInitExpr if it's supplied and a PARAM_EXTERN Param is found. For stand-alone expressions, we add a new entry point to allow the ParamListInfo to be specified directly, since it can't be retrieved from the parent plan node's EState. * Redesign the API for the ParamListInfo paramFetch hook so that the ParamExternData array can be entirely virtual. This also lets us get rid of ParamListInfo.paramMask, instead leaving it to the paramFetch hook to decide which param IDs should be accessible or not. plpgsql_param_fetch was already doing the identical masking check, so having callers do it too seemed redundant. While I was at it, I added a "speculative" flag to paramFetch that the planner can specify as TRUE to avoid unwanted failures. This solves an ancient problem for plpgsql that it couldn't provide values of non-DTYPE_VAR variables to the planner for fear of triggering premature "record not assigned yet" or "field not found" errors during planning. * Rework plpgsql to get rid of the need for "unshared" parameter lists, by dint of turning the single ParamListInfo per estate into a nearly read-only data structure that doesn't instantiate any per-variable data. Instead, the paramFetch hook controls access to per-variable data and can make the right decisions on the fly, replacing the cases that we used to need multiple ParamListInfos for. This might perhaps have been a performance loss on its own, but by using a paramCompile hook we can bypass plpgsql_param_fetch entirely during normal query execution. (It's now only called when, eg, we copy the ParamListInfo into a cursor portal. copyParamList() or SerializeParamList() effectively instantiate the virtual parameter array as a simple physical array without a paramFetch hook, which is what we want in those cases.) This allows reverting most of commit 6c82d8d1f, though I kept the cosmetic code-consolidation aspects of that (eg the assign_simple_var function). Performance testing shows this to be at worst a break-even change, and it can provide wins ranging up to 20% in test cases involving accesses to fields of "record" variables. The fact that values of such variables can now be exposed to the planner might produce wins in some situations, too, but I've not pursued that angle. In passing, remove the "parent" pointer from the arguments to ExecInitExprRec and related functions, instead storing that pointer in a transient field in ExprState. The ParamListInfo pointer for a stand-alone expression is handled the same way; we'd otherwise have had to add yet another recursively-passed-down argument in expression compilation. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/32589.1513706441@sss.pgh.pa.us	8 years ago
Robert Haas	e89a71fb44	Pass InitPlan values to workers via Gather (Merge). ... If a PARAM_EXEC parameter is used below a Gather (Merge) but the InitPlan that computes it is attached to or above the Gather (Merge), force the value to be computed before starting parallelism and pass it down to all workers. This allows us to use parallelism in cases where it previously would have had to be rejected as unsafe. We do - in this case - lose the optimization that the value is only computed if it's actually used. An alternative strategy would be to have the first worker that needs the value compute it, but one downside of that approach is that we'd then need to select a parallel-safe path to compute the parameter value; it couldn't for example contain a Gather (Merge) node. At some point in the future, we might want to consider both approaches. Independent of that consideration, there is a great deal more work that could be done to make more kinds of PARAM_EXEC parameters parallel-safe. This infrastructure could be used to allow a Gather (Merge) on the inner side of a nested loop (although that's not a very appealing plan) and cases where the InitPlan is attached below the Gather (Merge) could be addressed as well using various techniques. But this is a good start. Amit Kapila, reviewed and revised by me. Reviewing and testing from Kuntal Ghosh, Haribabu Kommi, and Tushar Ahuja. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1LV0Y1AUV4cUCdC+sYOx0Z0-8NAJ2Pd9=UKsbQ5Sr7+JQ@mail.gmail.com	8 years ago
Tom Lane	c12d570fa1	Support arrays over domains. ... Allowing arrays with a domain type as their element type was left un-done in the original domain patch, but not for any very good reason. This omission leads to such surprising results as array_agg() not working on a domain column, because the parser can't identify a suitable output type for the polymorphic aggregate. In order to fix this, first clean up the APIs of coerce_to_domain() and some internal functions in parse_coerce.c so that we consistently pass around a CoercionContext along with CoercionForm. Previously, we sometimes passed an "isExplicit" boolean flag instead, which is strictly less information; and coerce_to_domain() didn't even get that, but instead had to reverse-engineer isExplicit from CoercionForm. That's contrary to the documentation in primnodes.h that says that CoercionForm only affects display and not semantics. I don't think this change fixes any live bugs, but it makes things more consistent. The main reason for doing it though is that now build_coercion_expression() receives ccontext, which it needs in order to be able to recursively invoke coerce_to_target_type(). Next, reimplement ArrayCoerceExpr so that the node does not directly know any details of what has to be done to the individual array elements while performing the array coercion. Instead, the per-element processing is represented by a sub-expression whose input is a source array element and whose output is a target array element. This simplifies life in parse_coerce.c, because it can build that sub-expression by a recursive invocation of coerce_to_target_type(). The executor now handles the per-element processing as a compiled expression instead of hard-wired code. The main advantage of this is that we can use a single ArrayCoerceExpr to handle as many as three successive steps per element: base type conversion, typmod coercion, and domain constraint checking. The old code used two stacked ArrayCoerceExprs to handle type + typmod coercion, which was pretty inefficient, and adding yet another array deconstruction to do domain constraint checking seemed very unappetizing. In the case where we just need a single, very simple coercion function, doing this straightforwardly leads to a noticeable increase in the per-array-element runtime cost. Hence, add an additional shortcut evalfunc in execExprInterp.c that skips unnecessary overhead for that specific form of expression. The runtime speed of simple cases is within 1% or so of where it was before, while cases that previously required two levels of array processing are significantly faster. Finally, create an implicit array type for every domain type, as we do for base types, enums, etc. Everything except the array-coercion case seems to just work without further effort. Tom Lane, reviewed by Andrew Dunstan Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9852.1499791473@sss.pgh.pa.us	8 years ago
Tom Lane	decb08ebdf	Code review for NextValueExpr expression node type. ... Add missing infrastructure for this node type, notably in ruleutils.c where its lack could demonstrably cause EXPLAIN to fail. Add outfuncs/readfuncs support. (outfuncs support is useful today for debugging purposes. The readfuncs support may never be needed, since at present it would only matter for parallel query and NextValueExpr should never appear in a parallelizable query; but it seems like a bad idea to have a primnode type that isn't fully supported here.) Teach planner infrastructure that NextValueExpr is a volatile, parallel-unsafe, non-leaky expression node with cost cpu_operator_cost. Given its limited scope of usage, there *might* be no live bug today from the lack of that knowledge, but it's certainly going to bite us on the rear someday. Teach pg_stat_statements about the new node type, too. While at it, also teach cost_qual_eval() that MinMaxExpr, SQLValueFunction, XmlExpr, and CoerceToDomain should be charged as cpu_operator_cost. Failing to do this for SQLValueFunction was an oversight in my commit 0bb51aa96. The others are longer-standing oversights, but no time like the present to fix them. (In principle, CoerceToDomain could have cost much higher than this, but it doesn't presently seem worth trying to examine the domain's constraints here.) Modify execExprInterp.c to execute NextValueExpr as an out-of-line function; it seems quite unlikely to me that it's worth insisting that it be inlined in all expression eval methods. Besides, providing the out-of-line function doesn't stop anyone from inlining if they want to. Adjust some places where NextValueExpr support had been inserted with the aid of a dartboard rather than keeping it in the same order as elsewhere. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/23862.1499981661@sss.pgh.pa.us	9 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	9 years ago
Peter Eisentraut	3217327053	Identity columns ... This is the SQL standard-conforming variant of PostgreSQL's serial columns. It fixes a few usability issues that serial columns have: - CREATE TABLE / LIKE copies default but refers to same sequence - cannot add/drop serialness with ALTER TABLE - dropping default does not drop sequence - need to grant separate privileges to sequence - other slight weirdnesses because serial is some kind of special macro Reviewed-by: Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.burovoy@gmail.com>	9 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