12 Commits (763f2edd92095b1ca2f4476da073a28505c13820)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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
Tom Lane	07a3af0ff8	Fix parsetree representation of XMLTABLE(XMLNAMESPACES(DEFAULT ...)). ... The original coding for XMLTABLE thought it could represent a default namespace by a T_String Value node with a null string pointer. That's not okay, though; in particular outfuncs.c/readfuncs.c are not on board with such a representation, meaning you'll get a null pointer crash if you try to store a view or rule containing this construct. To fix, change the parsetree representation so that we have a NULL list element, instead of a bogus Value node. This isn't really a functional limitation since default XML namespaces aren't yet implemented in the executor; you'd just get "DEFAULT namespace is not supported" anyway. But crashes are not nice, so back-patch to v10 where this syntax was added. Ordinarily we'd consider a parsetree representation change to be un-backpatchable; but since existing releases would crash on the way to storing such constructs, there can't be any existing views/rules to be incompatible with. Per report from Andrey Lepikhov. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3690074f-abd2-56a9-144a-aa5545d7a291@postgrespro.ru	7 years ago
Andrew Gierth	07172d5aff	Avoid query-lifetime memory leaks in XMLTABLE (bug #15321) ... Multiple calls to XMLTABLE in a query (e.g. laterally applying it to a table with an xml column, an important use-case) were leaking large amounts of memory into the per-query context, blowing up memory usage. Repair by reorganizing memory context usage in nodeTableFuncscan; use the usual per-tuple context for row-by-row evaluations instead of perValueCxt, and use the explicitly created context -- renamed from perValueCxt to perTableCxt -- for arguments and state for each individual table-generation operation. Backpatch to PG10 where this code was introduced. Original report by IRC user begriffs; analysis and patch by me. Reviewed by Tom Lane and Pavel Stehule. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/153394403528.10284.7530399040974170549@wrigleys.postgresql.org	7 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
Bruce Momjian	9d4649ca49	Update copyright for 2018 ... Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3	8 years ago
Andres Freund	2cd7084524	Change tupledesc->attrs[n] to TupleDescAttr(tupledesc, n). ... This is a mechanical change in preparation for a later commit that will change the layout of TupleDesc. Introducing a macro to abstract the details of where attributes are stored will allow us to change that in separate step and revise it in future. Author: Thomas Munro, editorialized by Andres Freund Reviewed-By: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.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	9 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	9 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	9 years ago
Bruce Momjian	a6fd7b7a5f	Post-PG 10 beta1 pgindent run ... perltidy run not included.	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
Alvaro Herrera	fcec6caafa	Support XMLTABLE query expression ... XMLTABLE is defined by the SQL/XML standard as a feature that allows turning XML-formatted data into relational form, so that it can be used as a <table primary> in the FROM clause of a query. This new construct provides significant simplicity and performance benefit for XML data processing; what in a client-side custom implementation was reported to take 20 minutes can be executed in 400ms using XMLTABLE. (The same functionality was said to take 10 seconds using nested PostgreSQL XPath function calls, and 5 seconds using XMLReader under PL/Python). The implemented syntax deviates slightly from what the standard requires. First, the standard indicates that the PASSING clause is optional and that multiple XML input documents may be given to it; we make it mandatory and accept a single document only. Second, we don't currently support a default namespace to be specified. This implementation relies on a new executor node based on a hardcoded method table. (Because the grammar is fixed, there is no extensibility in the current approach; further constructs can be implemented on top of this such as JSON_TABLE, but they require changes to core code.) Author: Pavel Stehule, Álvaro Herrera Extensively reviewed by: Craig Ringer Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRAgfzMD-LoSmnMGybD0WsEznLHWap8DO79+-GTRAPR4qA@mail.gmail.com	9 years ago