force_parallel_mode is meant to be used to allow us to exercise the
parallel query infrastructure to ensure that it's working as we expect.
It seems some users think this GUC is for forcing the query planner into
picking a parallel plan regardless of the costs. A quick look at the
documentation would have made them realize that they were wrong, but the
GUC is likely too conveniently named which, evidently, seems to often
result in users expecting that it forces the planner into usefully
parallelizing queries.
Here we rename the GUC to something which casual users are less likely to
mistakenly think is what they need to make their query run more quickly.
For now, the old name can still be used. We'll revisit if the old name
mapping can be removed once the buildfarm configs are all updated.
Reviewed-by: John Naylor
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrsOi92_uA7PEaHZMH-S4Xv+MGhQWA+GrP8b1kjpS1HjQ@mail.gmail.com
Remove the test case added by commit fac1b470a, which never actually
worked to expose the problem it claimed to test. Replace it with
a case that does expose the problem, and also covers the SRF-not-
at-the-top deficiency repaired in 1aa8dad41.
Richard Guo, with some editorialization by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17564-c7472c2f90ef2da3@postgresql.org
create_projection_plan contains a hidden assumption (here made
explicit by an Assert) that a projection-capable Path will yield a
projection-capable Plan. Unfortunately, that assumption is violated
only a few lines away, by create_projection_plan itself. This means
that two stacked ProjectionPaths can yield an outcome where we try to
jam the upper path's tlist into a non-projection-capable child node,
resulting in an invalid plan.
There isn't any good reason to have stacked ProjectionPaths; indeed the
whole concept is faulty, since the set of Vars/Aggs/etc needed by the
upper one wouldn't necessarily be available in the output of the lower
one, nor could the lower one create such values if they weren't
available from its input. Hence, we can fix this by adjusting
create_projection_path to strip any top-level ProjectionPath from the
subpath it's given. (This amounts to saying "oh, we changed our
minds about what we need to project here".)
The test case added here only fails in v13 and HEAD; before that, we
don't attempt to shove the Sort into the parallel part of the plan,
for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. However, all the
directly-related code looks generally the same as far back as v11,
where the hazard was introduced (by d7c19e62a). So I've got no faith
that the same type of bug doesn't exist in v11 and v12, given the
right test case. Hence, back-patch the code changes, but not the
irrelevant test case, into those branches.
Per report from Bas Poot.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/534fca83789c4a378c7de379e9067d4f@politie.nl
SERIALIZABLE no longer inhibits parallelism, so we can drop some
outdated workarounds and comments from regression tests. The change
came in release 12, commit bb16aba5, but it's not really worth
back-patching.
Also fix a typo.
Reviewed-by: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGJUaHeK%3DHLATxF1JOKDjKJVrBKA-zmbPAebOM0Se2FQRg%40mail.gmail.com
Because sigsetjmp() will restore the initial state with signals blocked,
the code path in bgworker.c for reporting an error and exiting would
execute that way. Usually this is fairly harmless; but if a parallel
worker had an error message exceeding the shared-memory communication
buffer size (16K) it would lock up, because it would wait for a
resume-sending signal from its parallel leader which it would never
detect.
To fix, just unblock signals at the appropriate point.
This can be shown to fail back to 9.6. The lack of parallel query
infrastructure makes it difficult to provide a simple test case for
9.5; but I'm pretty sure the issue exists in some form there as well,
so apply the code change there too.
Vignesh C, reviewed by Bharath Rupireddy, Robert Haas, and myself
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALDaNm1d1hHPZUg3xU4XjtWBOLCrA+-2cJcLpw-cePZ=GgDVfA@mail.gmail.com
Revert part of commit 19df1702f5.
Early shutdown was added by that commit so that we could collect
statistics from workers, but unfortunately, it interacted badly with
rescans. The problem is that we ended up destroying the parallel context
which is required for rescans. This leads to rescans of a Limit node over
a Gather node to produce unpredictable results as it tries to access
destroyed parallel context. By reverting the early shutdown code, we
might lose statistics in some cases of Limit over Gather [Merge], but that
will require further study to fix.
Reported-by: Jerry Sievers
Diagnosed-by: Thomas Munro
Author: Amit Kapila, testcase by Vignesh C
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87ims2amh6.fsf@jsievers.enova.com
This removes the last of the temporary debugging queries added to the
regression tests by commit f03a9ca43. We've pretty much convinced
ourselves that the plan instability we were seeing is due to VACUUM
sometimes failing to update relpages/reltuples for a single-page table,
due to bgwriter or checkpointer holding a pin on that page at just the
wrong time. I'll push a workaround for that separately.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+hUKG+0CxrKRWRMf5ymN3gm+BECHna2B-q1w8onKBep4HasUw@mail.gmail.com
This reverts much of commit f03a9ca436,
but leaves the relpages/reltuples probe in select_parallel.sql.
The pg_stat_all_tables probes are unstable enough to be annoying,
and it no longer seems likely that they will teach us anything more
about the underlying problem. I'd still like some more confirmation
though that the observed plan instability is caused by VACUUM leaving
relpages/reltuples as zero for one of these tables.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+hUKG+0CxrKRWRMf5ymN3gm+BECHna2B-q1w8onKBep4HasUw@mail.gmail.com
We're seeing occasional instability in the plans generated for
parallel queries on the "a_star" table hierarchy. This suggests
that something is changing the planner's stats for those tables,
but that should not be happening within a regression test run.
To try to gather some information about what's happening, insert
additional queries to check the basic page/tuple counts for these
tables, as well as whether any vacuums or analyzes have happened
on them. (We expect that only the database-wide VACUUM in
sanity_check.sql will have touched them.)
I added the probes not only in select_parallel.sql itself, but
also in stats.sql, bearing in mind that the stats collector's
lag may prevent the initial query from reporting current truth.
If any extra vacuum/analyze has happened, the recheck in stats.sql
definitely ought to see it.
This commit can be reverted once we figure out what's going on.
Per suggestion from David Rowley, though I changed the queries around.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+hUKG+0CxrKRWRMf5ymN3gm+BECHna2B-q1w8onKBep4HasUw@mail.gmail.com
These test cases could be adversely affected by an upcoming change
to allow pullup of FROM-less subqueries. Tweak them to ensure that
they'll continue to test what they did before.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5395.1539275668@sss.pgh.pa.us
Currently, we don't have an explicit test to pass expanded-value
representations to workers, so we don't know whether it works on all kind
of platforms. We suspect that the current code won't work on
alignment-sensitive hardware. This commit will test that aspect and can
lead to failure on some of the buildfarm machines which we will fix in the
later commit.
Author: Tom Lane and Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11629.1536550032@sss.pgh.pa.us
Allowing sub-select containing LIMIT/OFFSET in workers can lead to
inconsistent results at the top-level as there is no guarantee that the
row order will be fully deterministic. The fix is to prohibit pushing
LIMIT/OFFSET within sub-selects to workers.
Reported-by: Andrew Fletcher
Bug: 15324
Author: Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Dilip Kumar
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/153417684333.10284.11356259990921828616@wrigleys.postgresql.org
workers.
Allowing window function calculation in workers leads to inconsistent
results because if the input row ordering is not fully deterministic, the
output of window functions might vary across workers. The fix is to treat
them as parallel-restricted.
In the passing, improve the coding pattern in max_parallel_hazard_walker
so that it has a chain of mutually-exclusive if ... else if ... else if
... else if ... IsA tests.
Reported-by: Marko Tiikkaja
Bug: 15324
Author: Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAL9smLAnfPJCDUUG4ckX2iznj53V7VSMsYefzZieN93YxTNOcw@mail.gmail.com
split_pathtarget_at_srfs() neglected to worry about sortgroupref labels
in the intermediate PathTargets it constructs. I think we'd supposed
that their labeling didn't matter, but it does at least for the case that
GroupAggregate/GatherMerge nodes appear immediately under the ProjectSet
step(s). This results in "ERROR: ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in
targetlist" during create_plan(), as reported by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.
To fix, make this logic track the sortgroupref labeling of expressions,
not just their contents. This also restores the pre-v10 behavior that
separate GROUP BY expressions will be kept distinct even if they are
textually equal().
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6=1_Ye9kx8YLBPmJs_xE72PPc6vNi5q2AOHowMaCWjJ2w@mail.gmail.com
Commit ab72716778 allowed Parallel Append paths to be generated for a
relation that is not parallel safe. Prevent that from happening.
Initial analysis by Tom Lane.
Reported-by: Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
Author: Amit Kapila and Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
Reviewed-by: Amit Khandekar and Robert Haas
Discussion:https://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6=tPJ6nJ08r__nU_pmLQiC0xY15Fn0HvG1Cprsjdd9s_Q@mail.gmail.com
Commit 0927d2f46d didn't check that
consider_parallel was set for the target relation or account for
the possibility that required_outer might be non-empty.
To prevent future bugs of this ilk, add some assertions to
add_partial_path and do a bit of future-proofing of the code
recently added to recurse_set_operations.
Report by Andreas Seltenreich. Patch by Jeevan Chalke. Review
by Amit Kapila and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM2+6=U+9otsyF2fYB8x_2TBeHTR90itarqW=qAEjN-kHaC7kw@mail.gmail.com
Many of the objects we create during the regression tests are put in the
public schema, so that using the same names in different regression tests
creates a hazard of test failures if any two such scripts run concurrently.
This patch cleans up a bunch of latent hazards of that sort, as well as two
live hazards.
The current situation in this regard is far worse than it was a year or two
back, because practically all of the partitioning-related test cases have
reused table names with enthusiasm. I despaired of cleaning up that mess
within the five most-affected tests (create_table, alter_table, insert,
update, inherit); fortunately those don't run concurrently.
Other than partitioning problems, most of the issues boil down to using
names like "foo", "bar", "tmp", etc, without thought for the fact that
other test scripts might use similar names concurrently. I've made an
effort to make all such names more specific.
One of the live hazards was that commit 7421f4b8 caused with.sql to
create a table named "test", conflicting with a similarly-named table
in alter_table.sql; this was exposed in the buildfarm recently.
The other one was that join.sql and transactions.sql both create tables
named "foo" and "bar"; but join.sql's uses of those names date back
only to December or so.
Since commit 7421f4b8 was back-patched to v10, back-patch a minimal
fix for that problem. The rest of this is just future-proofing.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4627.1521070268@sss.pgh.pa.us
A simple UNION ALL gets flattened into an appendrel of subquery
RTEs, but up until now it's been impossible for the appendrel to use
the partial paths for the subqueries, so we can implement the
appendrel as a Parallel Append but only one with non-partial paths
as children.
There are three separate obstacles to removing that limitation.
First, when planning a subquery, propagate any partial paths to the
final_rel so that they are potentially visible to outer query levels
(but not if they have initPlans attached, because that wouldn't be
safe). Second, after planning a subquery, propagate any partial paths
for the final_rel to the subquery RTE in the outer query level in the
same way we do for non-partial paths. Third, teach finalize_plan() to
account for the possibility that the fake parameter we use for rescan
signalling when the plan contains a Gather (Merge) node may be
propagated from an outer query level.
Patch by me, reviewed and tested by Amit Khandekar, Rajkumar
Raghuwanshi, and Ashutosh Bapat. Test cases based on examples by
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa6L9A1nNCk3aTDVZLZ4KkHDn1+tm7mFyFvP+uQPS7bAg@mail.gmail.com
Parallel-aware plan nodes must be prepared to run without parallelism
if it's not possible at execution time for whatever reason. Commit
ab72716778, which introduced Parallel
Append, overlooked this.
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi reported this problem, and I included his test
case in this patch. The code changes are by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6=WqkUudLg1GLZZ7fc5ScWC1+Y9qD=pAHeqy32WoeJQvw@mail.gmail.com
When a Gather or Gather Merge node is started and stopped multiple
times, accumulate instrumentation data only once, at the end, instead
of after each execution, to avoid recording inflated totals.
Commit 778e78ae9f, the previous attempt
at a fix, instead reset the state after every execution, which worked
for the general instrumentation data but had problems for the additional
instrumentation specific to Sort and Hash nodes.
Report by hubert depesz lubaczewski. Analysis and fix by Amit Kapila,
following a design proposal from Thomas Munro, with a comment tweak
by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20171127175631.GA405@depesz.com
I suppose it is a copy-and-paste error that this test doesn't actually
test the "Parallel Append with both partial and non-partial subplans"
case (EXPLAIN alone surely doesn't qualify as a test of executor
behavior). Fix that.
Also, add cosmetic aliases to make it possible to tell apart these
otherwise-identical test cases in log_statement output.
When we create an Append node, we can spread out the workers over the
subplans instead of piling on to each subplan one at a time, which
should typically be a bit more efficient, both because the startup
cost of any plan executed entirely by one worker is paid only once and
also because of reduced contention. We can also construct Append
plans using a mix of partial and non-partial subplans, which may allow
for parallelism in places that otherwise couldn't support it.
Unfortunately, this patch doesn't handle the important case of
parallelizing UNION ALL by running each branch in a separate worker;
the executor infrastructure is added here, but more planner work is
needed.
Amit Khandekar, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, reviewed and tested by
Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Langote, Rafia Sabih, Amit Kapila, and
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9dy0K_E8r727heqXoBmWZ83HwLFwdcaSSmBQ1+S+vRuUQ@mail.gmail.com
When a Gather or Gather Merge node is started and stopped multiple
times, the old code wouldn't reset the shared state between executions,
potentially resulting in dramatically inflated instrumentation data
for nodes beneath it. (The per-worker instrumentation ended up OK,
I think, but the overall totals were inflated.)
Report by hubert depesz lubaczewski. Analysis and fix by Amit Kapila,
reviewed and tweaked a bit by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20171127175631.GA405@depesz.com
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
Our initial work with int128 neglected alignment considerations, an
oversight that came back to bite us in bug #14897 from Vincent Lachenal.
It is unsurprising that int128 might have a 16-byte alignment requirement;
what's slightly more surprising is that even notoriously lax Intel chips
sometimes enforce that.
Raising MAXALIGN seems out of the question: the costs in wasted disk and
memory space would be significant, and there would also be an on-disk
compatibility break. Nor does it seem very practical to try to allow some
data structures to have more-than-MAXALIGN alignment requirement, as we'd
have to push knowledge of that throughout various code that copies data
structures around.
The only way out of the box is to make type int128 conform to the system's
alignment assumptions. Fortunately, gcc supports that via its
__attribute__(aligned()) pragma; and since we don't currently support
int128 on non-gcc-workalike compilers, we shouldn't be losing any platform
support this way.
Although we could have just done pg_attribute_aligned(MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF) and
called it a day, I did a little bit of extra work to make the code more
portable than that: it will also support int128 on compilers without
__attribute__(aligned()), if the native alignment of their 128-bit-int
type is no more than that of int64.
Add a regression test case that exercises the one known instance of the
problem, in parallel aggregation over a bigint column.
This will need to be back-patched, along with the preparatory commit
91aec93e6. But let's see what the buildfarm makes of it first.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171110185747.31519.28038@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Without this fix, dropping a role can sometimes result in parallel
query failures in sessions that have used "SET ROLE" to assume the
dropped role, even if that setting isn't active any more.
Report by Pavan Deolasee. Patch by Amit Kapila, reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CABOikdOomRcZsLsLK+Z+qENM1zxyaWnAvFh3MJZzZnnKiF+REg@mail.gmail.com
This was always intended to work, but due to an oversight in
max_parallel_hazard_walker, it didn't. In testing, we missed the
fact that it was only working for custom plans, where the parameter
value has been substituted for the parameter itself early enough
that everything worked. In a generic plan, the Param node survives
and must be treated as parallel-safe. SerializeParamList provides
for the transmission of parameter values to workers.
Amit Kapila with help from Kuntal Ghosh. Some changes by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+_BuZrmVCeua5Eqnm4Co9DAXdM5HPAOE2J19ePbR912Q@mail.gmail.com
If we only need, say, 10 tuples in total, then we certainly don't need
more than 10 tuples from any single process. Pushing down the limit
lets workers exit early when possible. For Gather Merge, there is
an additional benefit: a Sort immediately below the Gather Merge can
be done as a bounded sort if there is an applicable limit.
Robert Haas and Tom Lane
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYa3QKKrLj5rX7UvGqhH73G1Li4B-EKxrmASaca2tFu9Q@mail.gmail.com
Test that blessed records can be transferred through a TupleQueue and
correctly decoded by another backend. While touching the file, make
sure that force_parallel_mode settings only cover relevant tests.
Author: Thomas Munro, editorialized by Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170823054644.efuzftxjpfi6wwqs%40alap3.anarazel.de
That code patch was good as far as it went, but the associated test case
has exposed fundamental brain damage in the parallel scan mechanism,
which is going to take nontrivial work to correct. In the interests of
getting the buildfarm back to green so that unrelated work can proceed,
let's temporarily remove the test case.
is_parallel_safe() supposed that the only relevant property of a SubPlan
was the parallel safety of the referenced subplan tree. This is wrong:
the testexpr or args subtrees might contain parallel-unsafe stuff, as
demonstrated by the test case added here. However, just recursing into the
subtrees fails in a different way: we'll typically find PARAM_EXEC Params
representing the subplan's output columns in the testexpr. The previous
coding supposed that any Param must be treated as parallel-restricted, so
that a naive attempt at fixing this disabled parallel pushdown of SubPlans
altogether. We must instead determine, for any visited Param, whether it
is one that would be computed by a surrounding SubPlan node; if so, it's
safe to push down along with the SubPlan node.
We might later be able to extend this logic to cope with Params used for
correlated subplans and other cases; but that's a task for v11 or beyond.
Tom Lane and Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7064.1492022469@sss.pgh.pa.us
Like Gather, we spawn multiple workers and run the same plan in each
one; however, Gather Merge is used when each worker produces the same
output ordering and we want to preserve that output ordering while
merging together the streams of tuples from various workers. (In a
way, Gather Merge is like a hybrid of Gather and MergeAppend.)
This works out to a win if it saves us from having to perform an
expensive Sort. In cases where only a small amount of data would need
to be sorted, it may actually be faster to use a regular Gather node
and then sort the results afterward, because Gather Merge sometimes
needs to wait synchronously for tuples whereas a pure Gather generally
doesn't. But if this avoids an expensive sort then it's a win.
Rushabh Lathia, reviewed and tested by Amit Kapila, Thomas Munro,
and Neha Sharma, and reviewed and revised by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAGPqQf09oPX-cQRpBKS0Gq49Z+m6KBxgxd_p9gX8CKk_d75HoQ@mail.gmail.com
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
Commit 45be99f8cd took the position
that performing a merge join in parallel was not likely to work out
well, but this conclusion was greeted with skepticism even at the
time. Whether it was true then or not, it's clearly not true any
more now that we have parallel index scan.
Dilip Kumar, reviewed by Amit Kapila and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFiTN-v3=cM6nyFwFGp0fmvY4=kk79Hq9Fgu0u8CSJ-EEq1Tiw@mail.gmail.com
Commit 5262f7a4fc added similar support
for parallel index scans; this extends that work to index-only scans.
As with parallel index scans, this requires support from the index AM,
so currently parallel index-only scans will only be possible for btree
indexes.
Rafia Sabih, reviewed and tested by Rahila Syed, Tushar Ahuja,
and Amit Kapila
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOGQiiPEAs4C=TBp0XShxBvnWXuzGL2u++Hm1=qnCpd6_Mf8Fw@mail.gmail.com
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.
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
This doesn't do anything to make Param nodes anything other than
parallel-restricted, so this only helps with uncorrelated subplans,
and it's not necessarily very cheap because each worker will run the
subplan separately (just as a Hash Join will build a separate copy of
the hash table in each participating process), but it's a first step
toward supporting cases that are more likely to help in practice, and
is occasionally useful on its own.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and tested by Rafia Sabih, Dilip Kumar, and
me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+e8Z45D2n+rnDMDYsVEb5iW7jqaCH_tvPMYau=1Rru9w@mail.gmail.com
Remove the plpgsql wrapping that hides the context. So now the test
will fail if the work doesn't actually happen in a parallel worker. Run
the test in its own test group to ensure it won't run out of resources
for that.
The previous code neglected the fact that the scanjoin_target might
carry sortgroupref labelings that we need to absorb. Instead, do
create_projection_path() unconditionally, and tweak the path's cost
estimate after the fact. (I'm now convinced that we ought to refactor
the way we account for sometimes not needing a separate projection step,
but right now is not the time for that sort of cleanup.)
Problem identified by Amit Kapila, patch by me.
David Rowley