Add a new EState member es_leaf_result_relations, so that the trigger
code knows about ResultRelInfos created by tuple routing. Also make
sure ExplainPrintTriggers knows about partition-related
ResultRelInfos.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Amit Langote
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/57163e18-8e56-da83-337a-22f2c0008051@lab.ntt.co.jp
Some of these comments wrongly implied that only an AFTER ROW trigger
will cause a 'wholerow' attribute to be present for a foreign table,
but a BEFORE ROW trigger can have the same effect. Others implied
that it would always be present for a foreign table, but that's not
true either.
Etsuro Fujita and Robert Haas
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/10026bc7-1403-ef85-9e43-c6100c1cc0e3@lab.ntt.co.jp
Otherwise, partitioned tables with RETURNING expressions or subject
to a WITH CHECK OPTION do not work properly.
Amit Langote, reviewed by Amit Khandekar and Etsuro Fujita. A few
comment changes by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/9a39df80-871e-6212-0684-f93c83be4097@lab.ntt.co.jp
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.ushttps://postgr.es/m/b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com
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
Before, we always used a dummy value of 1, but that's not right when
the partitioned table being modified is inside of a WITH clause
rather than part of the main query.
Amit Langote, reported and reviewd by Etsuro Fujita, with a comment
change by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/ee12f648-8907-77b5-afc0-2980bcb0aa37@lab.ntt.co.jp
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
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
ExecInitModifyTable() thought there was a plan per partition, but no,
there's only one. The problem had escaped detection so far because there
would only be visible misbehavior if there were a SubPlan (not an InitPlan)
in the quals being duplicated for each partition. However, valgrind
detected a bogus memory access in test cases added by commit 4f7a95be2,
and investigation of that led to discovery of the bug. The additional
test case added here crashes without the patch.
Patch by Amit Langote, test case by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/10974.1497227727@sss.pgh.pa.us
Since tuple-routing implicitly checks the partitioning constraints
at least for the levels of the partitioning hierarchy it traverses,
there's normally no need to revalidate the partitioning constraint
after performing tuple routing. However, if there's a BEFORE trigger
on the target partition, it could modify the tuple, causing the
partitioning constraint to be violated. Catch that case.
Also, instead of checking the root table's partition constraint after
tuple-routing, check it beforehand. Otherwise, the rules for when
the partitioning constraint gets checked get too complicated, because
you sometimes have to check part of the constraint but not all of it.
This effectively reverts commit 39162b2030
in favor of a different approach altogether.
Report by me. Initial debugging by Jeevan Ladhe. Patch by Amit
Langote, reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa9DTgeVOqopieV8d1QRpddmP65aCdxyjdYDoEO5pS5KA@mail.gmail.com
Even though no actual tuples are ever inserted into a partitioned
table (the actual tuples are in the partitions, not the partitioned
table itself), we still need to have a ResultRelInfo for the
partitioned table, or per-statement triggers won't get fired.
Amit Langote, per a report from Rajkumar Raghuwanshi. Reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6%3DwYospCRY2J4XEFuVy0L41S%3Dfic7rmkbsU-GXhhSbmBg%40mail.gmail.com
This extends the castNode() notation introduced by commit 5bcab1114 to
provide, in one step, extraction of a list cell's pointer and coercion to
a concrete node type. For example, "lfirst_node(Foo, lc)" is the same
as "castNode(Foo, lfirst(lc))". Almost half of the uses of castNode
that have appeared so far include a list extraction call, so this is
pretty widely useful, and it saves a few more keystrokes compared to the
old way.
As with the previous patch, back-patch the addition of these macros to
pg_list.h, so that the notation will be available when back-patching.
Patch by me, after an idea of Andrew Gierth's.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/14197.1491841216@sss.pgh.pa.us
We decided in f1b4c771ea to pass the
original slot to ExecConstraints(), but that breaks when there are
BEFORE ROW triggers involved. So we need to do reverse-map the tuples
back to the original descriptor instead, as Amit originally proposed.
Amit Langote, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat. One overlooked comment
fixed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/b3a17254-6849-e542-2353-bde4e880b6a4@lab.ntt.co.jp
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
Partitioned tables do not contain any data; only their unpartitioned
descendents need to be scanned. However, the partitioned tables still
need to be locked, even though they're not scanned. To make that
work, Append and MergeAppend relations now need to carry a list of
(unscanned) partitioned relations that must be locked, and InitPlan
must lock all partitioned result relations.
Aside from the obvious advantage of avoiding some work at execution
time, this has two other advantages. First, it may improve the
planner's decision-making in some cases since the empty relation
might throw things off. Second, it paves the way to getting rid of
the storage for partitioned tables altogether.
Amit Langote, reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/6837c359-45c4-8044-34d1-736756335a15@lab.ntt.co.jp
Previously, ExecInitModifyTable was missing handling for WITH CHECK
OPTION, and view_query_is_auto_updatable was missing handling for
RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE.
Amit Langote, reviewed by me.
We've accumulated quite a bit of stuff with which pgindent is not
quite happy in this code; clean it up to provide a less-annoying base
for future pgindent runs.
Since 69f4b9c plain expression evaluation (and thus normal projection)
can't return sets of tuples anymore. Thus remove code dealing with
that possibility.
This will require adjustments in external code using
ExecEvalExpr()/ExecProject() - that should neither be hard nor very
common.
Author: Andres Freund and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160822214023.aaxz5l4igypowyri@alap3.anarazel.de
In ExecInsert(), do not switch back to the root partitioned table
ResultRelInfo until after we finish ExecProcessReturning(), so that
RETURNING projection is done using the partition's descriptor. For
the projection to work correctly, we must initialize the same for each
leaf partition during ModifyTableState initialization.
Amit Langote
After a tuple is routed to a partition, it has been converted from the
root table's row type to the partition's row type. ExecConstraints
needs to report the failure using the original tuple and the parent's
tuple descriptor rather than the ones for the selected partition.
Amit Langote
Commit 2ac3ef7a01 added a TupleTapleSlot
for partition tuple slot to EState (es_partition_tuple_slot) but it's
more logical to have it as part of ModifyTableState
(mt_partition_tuple_slot) and CopyState (partition_tuple_slot).
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/1bd459d9-4c0c-197a-346e-e5e59e217d97@lab.ntt.co.jp
Amit Langote, per a gripe from me
The previous coding failed to work correctly when we have a
multi-level partitioned hierarchy where tables at successive levels
have different attribute numbers for the partition key attributes. To
fix, have each PartitionDispatch object store a standalone
TupleTableSlot initialized with the TupleDesc of the corresponding
partitioned table, along with a TupleConversionMap to map tuples from
the its parent's rowtype to own rowtype. After tuple routing chooses
a leaf partition, we must use the leaf partition's tuple descriptor,
not the root table's. To that end, a dedicated TupleTableSlot for
tuple routing is now allocated in EState.
Amit Langote
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
INSERT ... ON CONFLICT (specifically ExecCheckHeapTupleVisible) contains
another example of this unsafe coding practice. It is much harder to get
a failure out of it than the case fixed in commit 6292c2339, because in
most scenarios any hint bits that could be set would have already been set
earlier in the command. However, Konstantin Knizhnik reported a failure
with a custom transaction manager, and it's clearly possible to get a
failure via a race condition in async-commit mode.
For lack of a reproducible example, no regression test case in this
commit.
I did some testing with Asserts added to tqual.c's functions, and can say
that running "make check-world" exposed these two bugs and no others.
The Asserts are messy enough that I've not added them to the code for now.
Report: <57EE93C8.8080504@postgrespro.ru>
Related-Discussion: <CAO3NbwOycQjt2Oqy2VW-eLTq2M5uGMyHnGm=RNga4mjqcYD7gQ@mail.gmail.com>
A transaction that conflicts against itself, for example
INSERT INTO t(pk) VALUES (1),(1) ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING;
should behave the same regardless of isolation level. It certainly
shouldn't throw a serialization error, as retrying will not help.
We got this wrong due to the ON CONFLICT logic not considering the case,
as reported by Jason Dusek.
Core of this patch is by Peter Geoghegan (based on an earlier patch by
Thomas Munro), though I didn't take his proposed code refactoring for fear
that it might have unexpected side-effects. Test cases by Thomas Munro
and myself.
Report: <CAO3NbwOycQjt2Oqy2VW-eLTq2M5uGMyHnGm=RNga4mjqcYD7gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Related-Discussion: <57EE93C8.8080504@postgrespro.ru>
postgres_fdw can now sent an UPDATE or DELETE statement directly to
the foreign server in simple cases, rather than sending a SELECT FOR
UPDATE statement and then updating or deleting rows one-by-one.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Rushabh Lathia, Shigeru Hanada, Kyotaro
Horiguchi, Albe Laurenz, Thom Brown, and me.
ExecOnConflictUpdate() passed t_ctid of the to-be-updated tuple to
ExecUpdate(). That's problematic primarily because of two reason: First
and foremost t_ctid could point to a different tuple. Secondly, and
that's what triggered the complaint by Stanislav, t_ctid is changed by
heap_update() to point to the new tuple version. The behavior of AFTER
UPDATE triggers was therefore broken, with NEW.* and OLD.* tuples
spuriously identical within AFTER UPDATE triggers.
To fix both issues, pass a pointer to t_self of a on-stack HeapTuple
instead.
Fixing this bug lead to one change in regression tests, which previously
failed due to the first issue mentioned above. There's a reasonable
expectation that test fails, as it updates one row repeatedly within one
INSERT ... ON CONFLICT statement. That is only possible if the second
update is triggered via ON CONFLICT ... SET, ON CONFLICT ... WHERE, or
by a WITH CHECK expression, as those are executed after
ExecOnConflictUpdate() does a visibility check. That could easily be
prohibited, but given it's allowed for plain UPDATEs and a rare corner
case, it doesn't seem worthwhile.
Reported-By: Stanislav Grozev
Author: Andres Freund and Peter Geoghegan
Discussion: CAA78GVqy1+LisN-8DygekD_Ldfy=BJLarSpjGhytOsgkpMavfQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 9.5, where ON CONFLICT was introduced
When taking the UPDATE path in an INSERT .. ON CONFLICT .. UPDATE tables
with oids were not supported. The tuple generated by the update target
list was projected without space for an oid - a simple oversight.
Reported-By: Peter Geoghegan
Author: Andres Freund
Backpatch: 9.5, where ON CONFLICT was introduced
There is no full discussion of speculative insertions in the executor
README. There is a high-level explanation in execIndexing.c, but it doesn't
seem necessary to refer it from here.
Peter Geoghegan
The previous coding was a leftover from attempting to hang all the on
conflict logic onto modify table's child nodes. It appears to not have
actually caused problems except for explain.
Add test exercising the broken and some other code paths.
Author: Peter Geoghegan and Andres Freund
Specifically the tlist and rti of the pseudo "excluded" relation weren't
properly treated by expression_tree_walker, which lead to errors when
excluded was referenced inside a rule because the varnos where not
properly adjusted. Similar omissions in OffsetVarNodes and
expression_tree_mutator had less impact, but should obviously be fixed
nonetheless.
A couple tests of for ON CONFLICT UPDATE into INSERT rule bearing
relations have been added.
In passing I updated a couple comments.
Previously, FDWs could only do "early row locking", that is lock a row as
soon as it's fetched, even though local restriction/join conditions might
discard the row later. This patch adds callbacks that allow FDWs to do
late locking in the same way that it's done for regular tables.
To make use of this feature, an FDW must support the "ctid" column as a
unique row identifier. Currently, since ctid has to be of type TID,
the feature is of limited use, though in principle it could be used by
postgres_fdw. We may eventually allow FDWs to specify another data type
for ctid, which would make it possible for more FDWs to use this feature.
This commit does not modify postgres_fdw to use late locking. We've
tested some prototype code for that, but it's not in committable shape,
and besides it's quite unclear whether it actually makes sense to do late
locking against a remote server. The extra round trips required are likely
to outweigh any benefit from improved concurrency.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat, and hacked up a lot by me
The newly added ON CONFLICT clause allows to specify an alternative to
raising a unique or exclusion constraint violation error when inserting.
ON CONFLICT refers to constraints that can either be specified using a
inference clause (by specifying the columns of a unique constraint) or
by naming a unique or exclusion constraint. DO NOTHING avoids the
constraint violation, without touching the pre-existing row. DO UPDATE
SET ... [WHERE ...] updates the pre-existing tuple, and has access to
both the tuple proposed for insertion and the existing tuple; the
optional WHERE clause can be used to prevent an update from being
executed. The UPDATE SET and WHERE clauses have access to the tuple
proposed for insertion using the "magic" EXCLUDED alias, and to the
pre-existing tuple using the table name or its alias.
This feature is often referred to as upsert.
This is implemented using a new infrastructure called "speculative
insertion". It is an optimistic variant of regular insertion that first
does a pre-check for existing tuples and then attempts an insert. If a
violating tuple was inserted concurrently, the speculatively inserted
tuple is deleted and a new attempt is made. If the pre-check finds a
matching tuple the alternative DO NOTHING or DO UPDATE action is taken.
If the insertion succeeds without detecting a conflict, the tuple is
deemed inserted.
To handle the possible ambiguity between the excluded alias and a table
named excluded, and for convenience with long relation names, INSERT
INTO now can alias its target table.
Bumps catversion as stored rules change.
Author: Peter Geoghegan, with significant contributions from Heikki
Linnakangas and Andres Freund. Testing infrastructure by Jeff Janes.
Reviewed-By: Heikki Linnakangas, Andres Freund, Robert Haas, Simon Riggs,
Dean Rasheed, Stephen Frost and many others.
The RLS capability is built on top of the WITH CHECK OPTION
system which was added for auto-updatable views, however, unlike
WCOs on views (which are mandated by the SQL spec to not fire until
after all other constraints and checks are done), it makes much more
sense for RLS checks to happen earlier than constraint and uniqueness
checks.
This patch reworks the structure which holds the WCOs a bit to be
explicitly either VIEW or RLS checks and the RLS-related checks are
done prior to the constraint and uniqueness checks. This also allows
better error reporting as we are now reporting when a violation is due
to a WITH CHECK OPTION and when it's due to an RLS policy violation,
which was independently noted by Craig Ringer as being confusing.
The documentation is also updated to include a paragraph about when RLS
WITH CHECK handling is performed, as there have been a number of
questions regarding that and the documentation was previously silent on
the matter.
Author: Dean Rasheed, with some kabitzing and comment changes by me.
Robert Haas