262 Commits (88e947136b47664b6936b35542f2d1eda0c90588)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Michael Paquier	88e947136b	Fix typos and grammar in the code ... The large majority of these have been introduced by recent commits done in the v18 development cycle. Author: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9a7763ab-5252-429d-a943-b28941e0e28b@gmail.com	2 months ago
Tom Lane	7c87284940	Fix failure for generated column with a not-null domain constraint. ... If a GENERATED column is declared to have a domain data type where the domain's constraints disallow null values, INSERT commands failed because we built a targetlist that included coercing a null constant to the domain's type. The failure occurred even when the generated value would have been perfectly OK. This is adjacent to the issues fixed in 0da39aa76, but we didn't notice for lack of testing a domain with such a constraint. We aren't going to use the result of the targetlist entry for the generated column --- ExecComputeStoredGenerated will overwrite it. So it's not really necessary that it have the exact datatype of the generated column. This patch fixes the problem by changing the targetlist entry to be a null Const of the domain's base type, which should be sufficiently legal. (We do have to tweak ExecCheckPlanOutput to accept the situation, though.) This has been broken since we implemented generated columns. However, this patch only applies easily as far back as v14, partly because I (tgl) only carried 0da39aa76 back that far, but mostly because v14 significantly refactored the handling of INSERT/UPDATE targetlists. Given the lack of field complaints and the short remaining support lifetime of v13, I judge the cost-benefit ratio not good for devising a version that would work in v13. Reported-by: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> Author: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CACJufxG59tip2+9h=rEv-ykOFjt0cbsPVchhi0RTij8bABBA0Q@mail.gmail.com Backpatch-through: 14	3 months ago
Dean Rasheed	8b6a0e2392	Fix MERGE with DO NOTHING actions into a partitioned table. ... ExecInitPartitionInfo() duplicates much of the logic in ExecInitMerge(), except that it failed to handle DO NOTHING actions. This would cause an "unknown action in MERGE WHEN clause" error if a MERGE with any DO NOTHING actions attempted to insert into a partition not already initialised by ExecInitModifyTable(). Bug: #18871 Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> Author: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18871-b44e3c96de3bd2e8%40postgresql.org Backpatch-through: 15	3 months ago
Amit Langote	28317de723	Ensure first ModifyTable rel initialized if all are pruned ... Commit cbc127917e introduced tracking of unpruned relids to avoid processing pruned relations, and changed ExecInitModifyTable() to initialize only unpruned result relations. As a result, MERGE statements that prune all target partitions can now lead to crashes or incorrect behavior during execution. The crash occurs because some executor code paths rely on ModifyTableState.resultRelInfo[0] being present and initialized, even when no result relations remain after pruning. For example, ExecMerge() and ExecMergeNotMatched() use the first resultRelInfo to determine the appropriate action. Similarly, ExecInitPartitionInfo() assumes that at least one result relation exists. To preserve these assumptions, ExecInitModifyTable() now includes the first result relation in the initialized result relation list if all result relations for that ModifyTable were pruned. To enable that, ExecDoInitialPruning() ensures the first relation is locked if it was pruned and locking is necessary. To support this exception to the pruning logic, PlannedStmt now includes a list of RT indexes identifying the first result relation of each ModifyTable node in the plan. This allows ExecDoInitialPruning() to check whether each such relation was pruned and, if so, lock it if necessary. Bug: #18830 Reported-by: Robins Tharakan <tharakan@gmail.com> Diagnozed-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com> Diagnozed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18830-1f31ea1dc930d444%40postgresql.org	3 months ago
Amit Langote	75dfde1363	Fix an oversight in cbc127917 to handle MERGE correctly ... ExecInitModifyTable() forgot to trim MERGE-related lists to exclude entries for result relations pruned during initial pruning, so fix that. While at it, make the function's use of the pruned resultRelations list, rather than ModifyTable.resultRelations, more consistent. Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> (via sqlsmith) Reviewed-by: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e72c94d9-e5f9-4753-9bc1-69d72bd54b8a@gmail.com	4 months ago
Peter Eisentraut	83ea6c5402	Virtual generated columns ... This adds a new variant of generated columns that are computed on read (like a view, unlike the existing stored generated columns, which are computed on write, like a materialized view). The syntax for the column definition is ... GENERATED ALWAYS AS (...) VIRTUAL and VIRTUAL is also optional. VIRTUAL is the default rather than STORED to match various other SQL products. (The SQL standard makes no specification about this, but it also doesn't know about VIRTUAL or STORED.) (Also, virtual views are the default, rather than materialized views.) Virtual generated columns are stored in tuples as null values. (A very early version of this patch had the ambition to not store them at all. But so much stuff breaks or gets confused if you have tuples where a column in the middle is completely missing. This is a compromise, and it still saves space over being forced to use stored generated columns. If we ever find a way to improve this, a bit of pg_upgrade cleverness could allow for upgrades to a newer scheme.) The capabilities and restrictions of virtual generated columns are mostly the same as for stored generated columns. In some cases, this patch keeps virtual generated columns more restricted than they might technically need to be, to keep the two kinds consistent. Some of that could maybe be relaxed later after separate careful considerations. Some functionality that is currently not supported, but could possibly be added as incremental features, some easier than others: - index on or using a virtual column - hence also no unique constraints on virtual columns - extended statistics on virtual columns - foreign-key constraints on virtual columns - not-null constraints on virtual columns (check constraints are supported) - ALTER TABLE / DROP EXPRESSION - virtual column cannot have domain type - virtual columns are not supported in logical replication The tests in generated_virtual.sql have been copied over from generated_stored.sql with the keyword replaced. This way we can make sure the behavior is mostly aligned, and the differences can be visible. Some tests for currently not supported features are currently commented out. Reviewed-by: Jian He <jian.universality@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> Tested-by: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/a368248e-69e4-40be-9c07-6c3b5880b0a6@eisentraut.org	5 months ago
Amit Langote	cbc127917e	Track unpruned relids to avoid processing pruned relations ... This commit introduces changes to track unpruned relations explicitly, making it possible for top-level plan nodes, such as ModifyTable and LockRows, to avoid processing partitions pruned during initial pruning. Scan-level nodes, such as Append and MergeAppend, already avoid the unnecessary processing by accessing partition pruning results directly via part_prune_index. In contrast, top-level nodes cannot access pruning results directly and need to determine which partitions remain unpruned. To address this, this commit introduces a new bitmapset field, es_unpruned_relids, which the executor uses to track the set of unpruned relations. This field is referenced during plan initialization to skip initializing certain nodes for pruned partitions. It is initialized with PlannedStmt.unprunableRelids, a new field that the planner populates with RT indexes of relations that cannot be pruned during runtime pruning. These include relations not subject to partition pruning and those required for execution regardless of pruning. PlannedStmt.unprunableRelids is computed during set_plan_refs() by removing the RT indexes of runtime-prunable relations, identified from PartitionPruneInfos, from the full set of relation RT indexes. ExecDoInitialPruning() then updates es_unpruned_relids by adding partitions that survive initial pruning. To support this, PartitionedRelPruneInfo and PartitionedRelPruningData now include a leafpart_rti_map[] array that maps partition indexes to their corresponding RT indexes. The former is used in set_plan_refs() when constructing unprunableRelids, while the latter is used in ExecDoInitialPruning() to convert partition indexes returned by get_matching_partitions() into RT indexes, which are then added to es_unpruned_relids. These changes make it possible for ModifyTable and LockRows nodes to process only relations that remain unpruned after initial pruning. ExecInitModifyTable() trims lists, such as resultRelations, withCheckOptionLists, returningLists, and updateColnosLists, to consider only unpruned partitions. It also creates ResultRelInfo structs only for these partitions. Similarly, child RowMarks for pruned relations are skipped. By avoiding unnecessary initialization of structures for pruned partitions, these changes improve the performance of updates and deletes on partitioned tables during initial runtime pruning. Due to ExecInitModifyTable() changes as described above, EXPLAIN on a plan for UPDATE and DELETE that uses runtime initial pruning no longer lists partitions pruned during initial pruning. Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> (earlier versions) Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFGkMSge6TgC9KQzde0ohpAycLQuV7ooitEEpbKB0O_mg@mail.gmail.com	5 months ago
Dean Rasheed	80feb727c8	Add OLD/NEW support to RETURNING in DML queries. ... This allows the RETURNING list of INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/MERGE queries to explicitly return old and new values by using the special aliases "old" and "new", which are automatically added to the query (if not already defined) while parsing its RETURNING list, allowing things like: RETURNING old.colname, new.colname, ... RETURNING old.*, new.* Additionally, a new syntax is supported, allowing the names "old" and "new" to be changed to user-supplied alias names, e.g.: RETURNING WITH (OLD AS o, NEW AS n) o.colname, n.colname, ... This is useful when the names "old" and "new" are already defined, such as inside trigger functions, allowing backwards compatibility to be maintained -- the interpretation of any existing queries that happen to already refer to relations called "old" or "new", or use those as aliases for other relations, is not changed. For an INSERT, old values will generally be NULL, and for a DELETE, new values will generally be NULL, but that may change for an INSERT with an ON CONFLICT ... DO UPDATE clause, or if a query rewrite rule changes the command type. Therefore, we put no restrictions on the use of old and new in any DML queries. Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Jian He and Jeff Davis. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWx0J0-v=Qjc6gXzR=KtsdvAE7Ow=D=mu50AgOe+pvisQ@mail.gmail.com	5 months ago
Bruce Momjian	50e6eb731d	Update copyright for 2025 ... Backpatch-through: 13	6 months ago
David Rowley	5983a4cffc	Introduce CompactAttribute array in TupleDesc, take 2 ... The new compact_attrs array stores a few select fields from FormData_pg_attribute in a more compact way, using only 16 bytes per column instead of the 104 bytes that FormData_pg_attribute uses. Using CompactAttribute allows performance-critical operations such as tuple deformation to be performed without looking at the FormData_pg_attribute element in TupleDesc which means fewer cacheline accesses. For some workloads, tuple deformation can be the most CPU intensive part of processing the query. Some testing with 16 columns on a table where the first column is variable length showed around a 10% increase in transactions per second for an OLAP type query performing aggregation on the 16th column. However, in certain cases, the increases were much higher, up to ~25% on one AMD Zen4 machine. This also makes pg_attribute.attcacheoff redundant. A follow-on commit will remove it, thus shrinking the FormData_pg_attribute struct by 4 bytes. Author: David Rowley Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Victor Yegorov Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrBztXP3yx=NKNmo3xwFAFhEdyPnvrDg3=M0RhDs+4vYw@mail.gmail.com	6 months ago
Noah Misch	aac2c9b4fd	For inplace update durability, make heap_update() callers wait. ... The previous commit fixed some ways of losing an inplace update. It remained possible to lose one when a backend working toward a heap_update() copied a tuple into memory just before inplace update of that tuple. In catalogs eligible for inplace update, use LOCKTAG_TUPLE to govern admission to the steps of copying an old tuple, modifying it, and issuing heap_update(). This includes MERGE commands. To avoid changing most of the pg_class DDL, don't require LOCKTAG_TUPLE when holding a relation lock sufficient to exclude inplace updaters. Back-patch to v12 (all supported versions). In v13 and v12, "UPDATE pg_class" or "UPDATE pg_database" can still lose an inplace update. The v14+ UPDATE fix needs commit 86dc90056d, and it wasn't worth reimplementing that fix without such infrastructure. Reviewed by Nitin Motiani and (in earlier versions) Heikki Linnakangas. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20231027214946.79.nmisch@google.com	9 months ago
Amit Kapila	9758174e2e	Log the conflicts while applying changes in logical replication. ... This patch provides the additional logging information in the following conflict scenarios while applying changes: insert_exists: Inserting a row that violates a NOT DEFERRABLE unique constraint. update_differ: Updating a row that was previously modified by another origin. update_exists: The updated row value violates a NOT DEFERRABLE unique constraint. update_missing: The tuple to be updated is missing. delete_differ: Deleting a row that was previously modified by another origin. delete_missing: The tuple to be deleted is missing. For insert_exists and update_exists conflicts, the log can include the origin and commit timestamp details of the conflicting key with track_commit_timestamp enabled. update_differ and delete_differ conflicts can only be detected when track_commit_timestamp is enabled on the subscriber. We do not offer additional logging for exclusion constraint violations because these constraints can specify rules that are more complex than simple equality checks. Resolving such conflicts won't be straightforward. This area can be further enhanced if required. Author: Hou Zhijie Reviewed-by: Shveta Malik, Amit Kapila, Nisha Moond, Hayato Kuroda, Dilip Kumar Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/OS0PR01MB5716352552DFADB8E9AD1D8994C92@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com	10 months ago
Noah Misch	d5e6891502	Fix new assertion for MERGE view_name ... DO NOTHING. ... Such queries don't expand automatically updatable views, and ModifyTable uses the wholerow attribute unconditionally. The user-visible behavior is fine, so change to more-specific assertions. Commit d5f788b41d added the wrong assertion. Back-patch to v17, where commit 5f2e179bd3 introduced MERGE view_name. Reported by Alexander Lakhin. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e4b40a88-c134-6926-3196-bc4501cb87a2@gmail.com	12 months ago
Noah Misch	d5f788b41d	Expand comments and add an assertion in nodeModifyTable.c. ... Most comments concern RELKIND_VIEW. One addresses the ExecUpdate() "tupleid" parameter. A later commit will rely on these facts, but they hold already. Back-patch to v12 (all supported versions), the plan for that commit. Reviewed (in an earlier version) by Robert Haas. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20240512232923.aa.nmisch@google.com	1 year ago
Alexander Korotkov	8dd0bb84da	Revert: Allow table AM tuple_insert() method to return the different slot ... This commit reverts c35a3fb5e0 per review by Andres Freund. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20240410165236.rwyrny7ihi4ddxw4%40awork3.anarazel.de	1 year ago
Alexander Korotkov	193e6d18e5	Revert: Allow locking updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete() ... This commit reverts 87985cc925 and 818861eb57 per review by Andres Freund. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20240410165236.rwyrny7ihi4ddxw4%40awork3.anarazel.de	1 year ago
Alexander Korotkov	da841aa4dc	Revert: Let table AM insertion methods control index insertion ... This commit reverts b1484a3f19 per review by Andres Freund. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20240410165236.rwyrny7ihi4ddxw4%40awork3.anarazel.de	1 year ago
Alexander Korotkov	b1484a3f19	Let table AM insertion methods control index insertion ... Previously, the executor did index insert unconditionally after calling table AM interface methods tuple_insert() and multi_insert(). This commit introduces the new parameter insert_indexes for these two methods. Setting '*insert_indexes' to true saves the current logic. Setting it to false indicates that table AM cares about index inserts itself and doesn't want the caller to do that. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdurb9ycV8udYqM%3Do0sPS66PJ4RCBM1g-bBpvzUfogY0EA%40mail.gmail.com Reviewed-by: Pavel Borisov, Matthias van de Meent, Mark Dilger	1 year ago
Dean Rasheed	0294df2f1f	Add support for MERGE ... WHEN NOT MATCHED BY SOURCE. ... This allows MERGE commands to include WHEN NOT MATCHED BY SOURCE actions, which operate on rows that exist in the target relation, but not in the data source. These actions can execute UPDATE, DELETE, or DO NOTHING sub-commands. This is in contrast to already-supported WHEN NOT MATCHED actions, which operate on rows that exist in the data source, but not in the target relation. To make this distinction clearer, such actions may now be written as WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET. Writing WHEN NOT MATCHED without specifying BY SOURCE or BY TARGET is equivalent to writing WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET. Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Alvaro Herrera, Ted Yu and Vik Fearing. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWqnKGc57Y_JanUBHQXNKcXd7r=0R4NEZUVwP+syRkWbA@mail.gmail.com	1 year ago
Alexander Korotkov	87985cc925	Allow locking updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete() ... Currently, in read committed transaction isolation mode (default), we have the following sequence of actions when tuple_update()/tuple_delete() finds the tuple updated by the concurrent transaction. 1. Attempt to update/delete tuple with tuple_update()/tuple_delete(), which returns TM_Updated. 2. Lock tuple with tuple_lock(). 3. Re-evaluate plan qual (recheck if we still need to update/delete and calculate the new tuple for update). 4. Second attempt to update/delete tuple with tuple_update()/tuple_delete(). This attempt should be successful, since the tuple was previously locked. This commit eliminates step 2 by taking the lock during the first tuple_update()/tuple_delete() call. The heap table access method saves some effort by checking the updated tuple once instead of twice. Future undo-based table access methods, which will start from the latest row version, can immediately place a lock there. Also, this commit makes tuple_update()/tuple_delete() optionally save the old tuple into the dedicated slot. That saves efforts on re-fetching tuples in certain cases. The code in nodeModifyTable.c is simplified by removing the nested switch/case. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdua-YFw3XTprfutzGp28xXLigFtzNbuFY8yPhqeq6X5kg%40mail.gmail.com Reviewed-by: Aleksander Alekseev, Pavel Borisov, Vignesh C, Mason Sharp Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Chris Travers	1 year ago
Alexander Korotkov	c35a3fb5e0	Allow table AM tuple_insert() method to return the different slot ... This allows table AM to return a native tuple slot even if VirtualTupleTableSlot is given as an input. Native tuple slots have knowledge about system attributes, which could be accessed in the future. table_multi_insert() method already can modify the input 'slots' array. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdurb9ycV8udYqM%3Do0sPS66PJ4RCBM1g-bBpvzUfogY0EA%40mail.gmail.com Reviewed-by: Matthias van de Meent, Mark Dilger, Pavel Borisov Reviewed-by: Nikita Malakhov, Japin Li	1 year ago
Dean Rasheed	c649fa24a4	Add RETURNING support to MERGE. ... This allows a RETURNING clause to be appended to a MERGE query, to return values based on each row inserted, updated, or deleted. As with plain INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE commands, the returned values are based on the new contents of the target table for INSERT and UPDATE actions, and on its old contents for DELETE actions. Values from the source relation may also be returned. As with INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, the output of MERGE ... RETURNING may be used as the source relation for other operations such as WITH queries and COPY commands. Additionally, a special function merge_action() is provided, which returns 'INSERT', 'UPDATE', or 'DELETE', depending on the action executed for each row. The merge_action() function can be used anywhere in the RETURNING list, including in arbitrary expressions and subqueries, but it is an error to use it anywhere outside of a MERGE query's RETURNING list. Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Isaac Morland, Vik Fearing, Alvaro Herrera, Gurjeet Singh, Jian He, Jeff Davis, Merlin Moncure, Peter Eisentraut, and Wolfgang Walther. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWePEGQR5LBn-vD6SfeLZafzEm2Qy_L_Oky2=qw2w3Pzg@mail.gmail.com	1 year ago
Dean Rasheed	29ef1dd19b	Fix handling of self-modified tuples in MERGE. ... When an UPDATE or DELETE action in MERGE returns TM_SelfModified, there are 2 possible causes: 1). The target tuple was already updated or deleted by the current command. This can happen if the target row joins to more than one source row, and the SQL standard explicitly says that this must be an error. 2). The target tuple was already updated or deleted by a later command in the current transaction. This can happen if the tuple is modified by a BEFORE trigger or a volatile function used in the query, and should be an error for the same reason that it is in a plain UPDATE or DELETE command. In MERGE's primary error handling block, it failed to check for (2), causing it to return a misleading error message in such cases. In the secondary error handling block, following a concurrent update from another session, it failed to check for (1), causing it to silently ignore target rows joined to more than one source row, instead of reporting an error. Fix this, and add tests for both of these cases. Per report from Wenjiang Zhang. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/tencent_41DE0FF443FE14B94A5898D373792109E408%40qq.com	1 year ago
Peter Eisentraut	dbbca2cf29	Remove unused #include's from backend .c files ... as determined by include-what-you-use (IWYU) While IWYU also suggests to *add* a bunch of #include's (which is its main purpose), this patch does not do that. In some cases, a more specific #include replaces another less specific one. Some manual adjustments of the automatic result: - IWYU currently doesn't know about includes that provide global variable declarations (like -Wmissing-variable-declarations), so those includes are being kept manually. - All includes for port(ability) headers are being kept for now, to play it safe. - No changes of catalog/pg_foo.h to catalog/pg_foo_d.h, to keep the patch from exploding in size. Note that this patch touches just *.c files, so nothing declared in header files changes in hidden ways. As a small example, in src/backend/access/transam/rmgr.c, some IWYU pragma annotations are added to handle a special case there. Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/af837490-6b2f-46df-ba05-37ea6a6653fc%40eisentraut.org	1 year ago
Dean Rasheed	5f2e179bd3	Support MERGE into updatable views. ... This allows the target relation of MERGE to be an auto-updatable or trigger-updatable view, and includes support for WITH CHECK OPTION, security barrier views, and security invoker views. A trigger-updatable view must have INSTEAD OF triggers for every type of action (INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE) mentioned in the MERGE command. An auto-updatable view must not have any INSTEAD OF triggers. Mixing auto-update and trigger-update actions (i.e., having a partial set of INSTEAD OF triggers) is not supported. Rule-updatable views are also not supported, since there is no rewriter support for non-SELECT rules with MERGE operations. Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Jian He and Alvaro Herrera. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCVcB1g0nmxuEc-A+gGB0HnfcGQNGYH7gS=7rq0u0zOBXA@mail.gmail.com	1 year ago
Dean Rasheed	362de947cd	Remove field UpdateContext->updated in nodeModifyTable.c ... This field has been redundant ever since it was added by commit 25e777cf8e, which split up ExecUpdate() and ExecDelete() into reusable pieces. The only place that reads it is ExecMergeMatched(), if the result from ExecUpdateAct() is TM_Ok. However, all paths through ExecUpdateAct() that return TM_Ok also set this field to true, so the return status by itself is sufficient to tell if the update happened. Removing this field is a modest simplification, and it brings the UPDATE path in ExecMergeMatched() more into line with ExecUpdate(), ensuring that ExecUpdateEpilogue() is always called if ExecUpdateAct() returns TM_Ok, reducing the chance of bugs. Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Alvaro Herrera. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWGGmigGBzLHkJm5Ccv2mMxXmwi3%2Buq0yhwDHm-tsvSLg%40mail.gmail.com	1 year ago
Bruce Momjian	29275b1d17	Update copyright for 2024 ... Reported-by: Michael Paquier Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZZKTDPxBBMt3C0J9@paquier.xyz Backpatch-through: 12	2 years ago
Dean Rasheed	a0ff37173d	Fix BEFORE ROW trigger handling in cross-partition MERGE update. ... Fix a bug during MERGE if a cross-partition update is attempted on a partitioned table with a BEFORE DELETE ROW trigger that returns NULL, to prevent the update. This would cause an error to be thrown, or an assert failure in an assert-enabled build. This was an oversight in 9321c79c86, which failed to properly distinguish a DELETE prevented by a trigger from one prevented by a concurrent update. Fix by having ExecDelete() return the TM_Result status to ExecCrossPartitionUpdate(), so that it can distinguish the two cases, and make ExecCrossPartitionUpdate() return the TM_Result status to ExecUpdateAct(), so that it can return the correct status from a concurrent update. In addition, ensure that the command tag is correctly updated by having ExecMergeMatched() pass canSetTag to ExecUpdateAct(), rather than passing false, so that it updates the command tag if it does a cross-partition update, making this code path in ExecMergeMatched() consistent with ExecUpdate(). Per bug #18238 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced. Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Richard Guo and Jian He. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18238-2f2bdc7f720180b9%40postgresql.org	2 years ago
Dean Rasheed	a4f7d33a90	Fix AFTER ROW trigger execution in MERGE cross-partition update. ... When executing a MERGE UPDATE action, if the UPDATE is turned into a cross-partition DELETE then INSERT, do not attempt to invoke AFTER UPDATE ROW triggers, or any of the other post-update actions in ExecUpdateEpilogue(). For consistency with a plain UPDATE command, such triggers should not be fired (and typically fail anyway), and similarly, other post-update actions, such as WCO/RLS checks should not be executed, and might also lead to unexpected failures. Therefore, as with ExecUpdate(), make ExecMergeMatched() return immediately if ExecUpdateAct() reports that a cross-partition update was done, to be sure that no further processing is done for that tuple. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWjBgagyNZs02vgDF0DvASYj-iHTFtXG2-nP3orZhmtcw%40mail.gmail.com	2 years ago
Tom Lane	387f9ed0a0	Fix problems when a plain-inheritance parent table is excluded. ... When an UPDATE/DELETE/MERGE's target table is an old-style inheritance tree, it's possible for the parent to get excluded from the plan while some children are not. (I believe this is only possible if we can prove that a CHECK ... NO INHERIT constraint on the parent contradicts the query WHERE clause, so it's a very unusual case.) In such a case, ExecInitModifyTable mistakenly concluded that the first surviving child is the target table, leading to at least two bugs: 1. The wrong table's statement-level triggers would get fired. 2. In v16 and up, it was possible to fail with "invalid perminfoindex 0 in RTE with relid nnnn" due to the child RTE not having permissions data included in the query plan. This was hard to reproduce reliably because it did not occur unless the update triggered some non-HOT index updates. In v14 and up, this is easy to fix by defining ModifyTable.rootRelation to be the parent RTE in plain inheritance as well as partitioned cases. While the wrong-triggers bug also appears in older branches, the relevant code in both the planner and executor is quite a bit different, so it would take a good deal of effort to develop and test a suitable patch. Given the lack of field complaints about the trigger issue, I'll desist for now. (Patching v11 for this seems unwise anyway, given that it will have no more releases after next month.) Per bug #18147 from Hans Buschmann. Amit Langote and Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18147-6fc796538913ee88@postgresql.org	2 years ago
Dean Rasheed	1d5caec221	Fix EvalPlanQual rechecking during MERGE. ... Under some circumstances, concurrent MERGE operations could lead to inconsistent results, that varied according the plan chosen. This was caused by a lack of rowmarks on the source relation, which meant that EvalPlanQual rechecking was not guaranteed to return the same source tuples when re-running the join query. Fix by ensuring that preprocess_rowmarks() sets up PlanRowMarks for all non-target relations used in MERGE, in the same way that it does for UPDATE and DELETE. Per bug #18103. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced. Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Richard Guo. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18103-c4386baab8e355e3%40postgresql.org	2 years ago
Amit Langote	d060e921ea	Remove obsolete executor cleanup code ... This commit removes unnecessary ExecExprFreeContext() calls in ExecEnd* routines because the actual cleanup is managed by FreeExecutorState(). With no callers remaining for ExecExprFreeContext(), this commit also removes the function. This commit also drops redundant ExecClearTuple() calls, because ExecResetTupleTable() in ExecEndPlan() already takes care of resetting and dropping all TupleTableSlots initialized with ExecInitScanTupleSlot() and ExecInitExtraTupleSlot(). After these modifications, the ExecEnd*() routines for ValuesScan, NamedTuplestoreScan, and WorkTableScan became redundant. So, this commit removes them. Reviewed-by: Robert Haas Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFGkMSge6TgC9KQzde0ohpAycLQuV7ooitEEpbKB0O_mg@mail.gmail.com	2 years ago
Dean Rasheed	c2e08b04c9	Fix RLS policy usage in MERGE. ... If MERGE executes an UPDATE action on a table with row-level security, the code incorrectly applied the WITH CHECK clauses from the target table's INSERT policies to new rows, instead of the clauses from the table's UPDATE policies. In addition, it failed to check new rows against the target table's SELECT policies, if SELECT permissions were required (likely to always be the case). In addition, if MERGE executes a DO NOTHING action for matched rows, the code incorrectly applied the USING clauses from the target table's DELETE policies to existing target tuples. These policies were applied as checks that would throw an error, if they did not pass. Fix this, so that a MERGE UPDATE action applies the same RLS policies as a plain UPDATE query with a WHERE clause, and a DO NOTHING action does not apply any RLS checks (other than adding clauses from SELECT policies to the join). Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced. Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Stephen Frost. Security: CVE-2023-39418	2 years ago
Tom Lane	0245f8db36	Pre-beta mechanical code beautification. ... Run pgindent, pgperltidy, and reformat-dat-files. This set of diffs is a bit larger than typical. We've updated to pg_bsd_indent 2.1.2, which properly indents variable declarations that have multi-line initialization expressions (the continuation lines are now indented one tab stop). We've also updated to perltidy version 20230309 and changed some of its settings, which reduces its desire to add whitespace to lines to make assignments etc. line up. Going forward, that should make for fewer random-seeming changes to existing code. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230428092545.qfb3y5wcu4cm75ur@alvherre.pgsql	2 years ago
Tom Lane	70b42f2790	Fix misbehavior of EvalPlanQual checks with multiple result relations. ... The idea of EvalPlanQual is that we replace the query's scan of the result relation with a single injected tuple, and see if we get a tuple out, thereby implying that the injected tuple still passes the query quals. (In join cases, other relations in the query are still scanned normally.) This logic was not updated when commit 86dc90056 made it possible for a single DML query plan to have multiple result relations, when the query target relation has inheritance or partition children. We replaced the output for the current result relation successfully, but other result relations were still scanned normally; thus, if any other result relation contained a tuple satisfying the quals, we'd think the EPQ check passed, even if it did not pass for the injected tuple itself. This would lead to update or delete actions getting performed when they should have been skipped due to a conflicting concurrent update in READ COMMITTED isolation mode. Fix by blocking all sibling result relations from emitting tuples during an EvalPlanQual recheck. In the back branches, the fix is complicated a bit by the need to not change the size of struct EPQState (else we'd have ABI-breaking changes in offsets in struct ModifyTableState). Like the back-patches of 3f7836ff6 and 4b3e37993, add a separately palloc'd struct to avoid that. The logic is the same as in HEAD otherwise. This is only a live bug back to v14 where 86dc90056 came in. However, I chose to back-patch the test cases further, on the grounds that this whole area is none too well tested. I skipped doing so in v11 though because none of the test applied cleanly, and it didn't quite seem worth extra work for a branch with only six months to live. Per report from Ante Krešić (via Aleksander Alekseev) Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJ7c6TMBTN3rcz4=AjYhLPD_w3FFT0Wq_C15jxCDn8U4tZnH1g@mail.gmail.com	2 years ago
Michael Paquier	806fad7573	Fix buffer refcount leak with FDW bulk inserts ... The leak would show up when using batch inserts with foreign tables included in a partition tree, as the slots used in the batch were not reset once processed. In order to fix this problem, some ExecClearTuple() are added to clean up the slots used once a batch is filled and processed, mapping with the number of slots currently in use as tracked by the counter ri_NumSlots. This buffer refcount leak has been introduced in b676ac4 with the addition of the executor facility to improve bulk inserts for FDWs, so backpatch down to 14. Alexander has provided the patch (slightly modified by me). The test for postgres_fdw comes from me, based on the test case that the author has sent in the report. Author: Alexander Pyhalov Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b035780a740efd38dc30790c76927255@postgrespro.ru Backpatch-through: 14	2 years ago
David Rowley	3f58a4e296	Fix various typos and incorrect/outdated name references ... Author: Alexander Lakhin Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/699beab4-a6ca-92c9-f152-f559caf6dc25@gmail.com	2 years ago
David Rowley	b4dbf3e924	Fix various typos ... This fixes many spelling mistakes in comments, but a few references to invalid parameter names, function names and option names too in comments and also some in string constants Also, fix an #undef that was undefining the incorrect definition Author: Alexander Lakhin Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d5f68d19-c0fc-91a9-118d-7c6a5a3f5fad@gmail.com	2 years ago
Alexander Korotkov	b0b91ced16	Revert 764da7710b ... Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230323003003.plgaxjqahjgkuxrk%40awork3.anarazel.de	2 years ago
Alexander Korotkov	2b65bf046d	Revert 11470f544e ... Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230323003003.plgaxjqahjgkuxrk%40awork3.anarazel.de	2 years ago
Alexander Korotkov	11470f544e	Allow locking updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete() ... Currently, in read committed transaction isolation mode (default), we have the following sequence of actions when tuple_update()/tuple_delete() finds the tuple updated by concurrent transaction. 1. Attempt to update/delete tuple with tuple_update()/tuple_delete(), which returns TM_Updated. 2. Lock tuple with tuple_lock(). 3. Re-evaluate plan qual (recheck if we still need to update/delete and calculate the new tuple for update). 4. Second attempt to update/delete tuple with tuple_update()/tuple_delete(). This attempt should be successful, since the tuple was previously locked. This patch eliminates step 2 by taking the lock during first tuple_update()/tuple_delete() call. Heap table access method saves some efforts by checking the updated tuple once instead of twice. Future undo-based table access methods, which will start from the latest row version, can immediately place a lock there. The code in nodeModifyTable.c is simplified by removing the nested switch/case. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdua-YFw3XTprfutzGp28xXLigFtzNbuFY8yPhqeq6X5kg%40mail.gmail.com Reviewed-by: Aleksander Alekseev, Pavel Borisov, Vignesh C, Mason Sharp Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Chris Travers	2 years ago
Alexander Korotkov	764da7710b	Evade extra table_tuple_fetch_row_version() in ExecUpdate()/ExecDelete() ... When we lock tuple using table_tuple_lock() then we at the same time fetch the locked tuple to the slot. In this case we can skip extra table_tuple_fetch_row_version() thank to we've already fetched the 'old' tuple and nobody can change it concurrently since it's locked. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdua-YFw3XTprfutzGp28xXLigFtzNbuFY8yPhqeq6X5kg%40mail.gmail.com Reviewed-by: Aleksander Alekseev, Pavel Borisov, Vignesh C, Mason Sharp Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Chris Travers	2 years ago
Tomas Vondra	19d8e2308b	Ignore BRIN indexes when checking for HOT updates ... When determining whether an index update may be skipped by using HOT, we can ignore attributes indexed by block summarizing indexes without references to individual tuples that need to be cleaned up. A new type TU_UpdateIndexes provides a signal to the executor to determine which indexes to update - no indexes, all indexes, or only the summarizing indexes. This also removes rd_indexattr list, and replaces it with rd_attrsvalid flag. The list was not used anywhere, and a simple flag is sufficient. This was originally committed as 5753d4ee32, but then got reverted by e3fcca0d0d because of correctness issues. Original patch by Josef Simanek, various fixes and improvements by Tomas Vondra and me. Authors: Matthias van de Meent, Josef Simanek, Tomas Vondra Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra, Alvaro Herrera Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/05ebcb44-f383-86e3-4f31-0a97a55634cf@enterprisedb.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFp7QwpMRGcDAQumN7onN9HjrJ3u4X3ZRXdGFT0K5G2JWvnbWg%40mail.gmail.com	2 years ago
Dean Rasheed	7b14e20b12	Fix MERGE command tag for actions blocked by BEFORE ROW triggers. ... This ensures that the row count in the command tag for a MERGE is correctly computed in the case where UPDATEs or DELETEs are skipped due to a BEFORE ROW trigger returning NULL (the INSERT case was already handled correctly by ExecMergeNotMatched() calling ExecInsert()). Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCU8XEmR0JWKDtyb7iZ%3DqCffxS9uyJt0iOZ4TV4RT%2Bow1w%40mail.gmail.com	2 years ago
Dean Rasheed	9321c79c86	Fix concurrent update issues with MERGE. ... If MERGE attempts an UPDATE or DELETE on a table with BEFORE ROW triggers, or a cross-partition UPDATE (with or without triggers), and a concurrent UPDATE or DELETE happens, the merge code would fail. In some cases this would lead to a crash, while in others it would cause the wrong merge action to be executed, or no action at all. The immediate cause of the crash was the trigger code calling ExecGetUpdateNewTuple() as part of the EPQ mechanism, which fails because during a merge ri_projectNew is NULL, since merge has its own per-action projection information, which ExecGetUpdateNewTuple() knows nothing about. Fix by arranging for the trigger code to exit early, returning the TM_Result and TM_FailureData information, if a concurrent modification is detected, allowing the merge code to do the necessary EPQ handling in its own way. Similarly, prevent the cross-partition update code from doing any EPQ processing for a merge, allowing the merge code to work out what it needs to do. This leads to a number of simplifications in nodeModifyTable.c. Most notably, the ModifyTableContext->GetUpdateNewTuple() callback is no longer needed, and mergeGetUpdateNewTuple() can be deleted, since there is no longer any requirement for get-update-new-tuple during a merge. Similarly, ModifyTableContext->cpUpdateRetrySlot is no longer needed. Thus ExecGetUpdateNewTuple() and the retry_slot handling of ExecCrossPartitionUpdate() can be restored to how they were in v14, before the merge code was added, and ExecMergeMatched() no longer needs any special-case handling for cross-partition updates. While at it, tidy up ExecUpdateEpilogue() a bit, making it handle recheckIndexes locally, rather than passing it in as a parameter, ensuring that it is freed properly. This dates back to when it was split off from ExecUpdate() to support merge. Per bug #17809 from Alexander Lakhin, and follow-up investigation of bug #17792, also from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced, taking care to preserve backwards-compatibility of the trigger API in v15 for any extensions that might use it. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17809-9e6650bef133f0fe%40postgresql.org https://postgr.es/m/17792-0f89452029662c36%40postgresql.org	2 years ago
Tom Lane	7fee7871b4	Fix some more cases of missed GENERATED-column updates. ... If UPDATE is forced to retry after an EvalPlanQual check, it neglected to repeat GENERATED-column computations, even though those might well have changed since we're dealing with a different tuple than before. Fixing this is mostly a matter of looping back a bit further when we retry. In v15 and HEAD that's most easily done by altering the API of ExecUpdateAct so that it includes computing GENERATED expressions. Also, if an UPDATE in a partitioned table turns into a cross-partition INSERT operation, we failed to recompute GENERATED columns. That's a bug since 8bf6ec3ba allowed partitions to have different generation expressions; although it seems to have no ill effects before that. Fixing this is messier because we can now have situations where the same query needs both the UPDATE-aligned set of GENERATED columns and the INSERT-aligned set, and it's unclear which set will be generated first (else we could hack things by forcing the INSERT-aligned set to be generated, which is indeed how fe9e658f4 made it work for MERGE). The best fix seems to be to build and store separate sets of expressions for the INSERT and UPDATE cases. That would create ABI issues in the back branches, but so far it seems we can leave this alone in the back branches. Per bug #17823 from Hisahiro Kauchi. The first part of this affects all branches back to v12 where GENERATED columns were added. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17823-b64909cf7d63de84@postgresql.org	2 years ago
Dean Rasheed	80a48e0f21	Fix MERGE command tag for cross-partition updates. ... This ensures that the row count in the command tag for a MERGE is correctly computed. Previously, if MERGE updated a partitioned table, the row count would be incorrect if any row was moved to a different partition, since such updates were counted twice. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWRMG7XX2QEsVL1LswmNo2d_YG8tKTLkpD3=Lp644S7rg@mail.gmail.com	2 years ago
Michael Paquier	17feb6a566	Remove duplicated comment in nodeModifyTable.c ... Author: Amul Sul Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b97badUU8_DHNoFCXZxF6YUk0Yb=53rrum168hd1haJgpQ@mail.gmail.com	2 years ago
Alvaro Herrera	fd923b5de9	Don't rely on uninitialized value in MERGE / DELETE ... On MERGE / WHEN MATCHED DELETE it's not possible to get cross-partition updates, so we don't initialize cpUpdateRetrySlot; however, the code was not careful to ignore the value in that case. Make it do so. Backpatch to 15. Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17792-0f89452029662c36@postgresql.org	2 years ago
Dean Rasheed	fe9e658f4d	Ensure that MERGE recomputes GENERATED expressions properly. ... This fixes a bug that, under some circumstances, would cause MERGE to fail to properly recompute expressions for GENERATED STORED columns. Formerly, ExecInitModifyTable() did not call ExecInitStoredGenerated() for a MERGE command, which meant that the generated expressions information was not computed until later, when the first merge action was executed. However, if the first merge action to execute was an UPDATE, then ExecInitStoredGenerated() could decide to skip some some generated columns, if the columns on which they depended were not updated, which was a problem if the MERGE also contained an INSERT action, for which no generated columns should be skipped. So fix by having ExecInitModifyTable() call ExecInitStoredGenerated() for MERGE, and assume that it isn't safe to skip any generated columns in a MERGE. Possibly that could be relaxed, by allowing some generated columns to be skipped for a MERGE without an INSERT action, but it's not clear that it's worth the effort. Noticed while investigating bug #17759. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was added. Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Tom Lane. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17759-e76d9bece1b5421c%40postgresql.org https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCXb_ezoMCcL0tzKwRGA1x0oeE%3DawTaysRfTPq%2B3wNJn8g%40mail.gmail.com	2 years ago