15 Commits (dbca84f04ed5debe748029699aa44fa86beca32d)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Robert Haas	5a73e17317	Improve error reporting for tuple-routing failures. ... Currently, the whole row is shown without column names. Instead, adopt a style similar to _bt_check_unique() in ExecFindPartition() and show the failing key: (key1, ...) = (val1, ...). Amit Langote, per a complaint from Simon Riggs. Reviewed by me; I also adjusted the grammar in one of the comments. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/9f9dc7ae-14f0-4a25-5485-964d9bfc19bd@lab.ntt.co.jp	9 years ago
Robert Haas	132488bfee	Set ecxt_scantuple correctly for tuple routing. ... In 2ac3ef7a01, we changed things so that it's possible for a different TupleTableSlot to be used for partitioned tables at successively lower levels. If we do end up changing the slot from the original, we must update ecxt_scantuple to point to the new one for partition key of the tuple to be computed correctly. Reported by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi. Patch by Amit Langote. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6%3Dm1qyqB2k6cjniuMMrYXb75O-MB4qGQMu8zg-iGGLjDw%40mail.gmail.com	9 years ago
Robert Haas	05bd889904	Fix RETURNING to work correctly with partition tuple routing. ... 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	9 years ago
Robert Haas	39162b2030	Fix failure to enforce partitioning contraint for internal partitions. ... When a tuple is inherited into a partitioning root, no partition constraints need to be enforced; when it is inserted into a leaf, the parent's partitioning quals needed to be enforced. The previous coding got both of those cases right. When a tuple is inserted into an intermediate level of the partitioning hierarchy (i.e. a table which is both a partition itself and in turn partitioned), it must enforce the partitioning qual inherited from its parent. That case got overlooked; repair. Amit Langote	9 years ago
Robert Haas	e509e7f9e3	Avoid use of DROP TABLE .. CASCADE in partitioning tests. ... This isn't really guaranteed to always produce exactly the same output; the order can change from run to run. See related cleanup in 257d815720.	9 years ago
Robert Haas	d26fa4fd47	Add some more tests for tuple routing. ... Commit a25665088d fixed some issues with how PartitionDispatch related code handled multi-level partitioned tables, but didn't add any tests. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA%2BTgmoZ86v1G%2Bzx9etMiSQaBBvYMKfU-iitqZArSh5z0n8Q4cA%40mail.gmail.com Amit Langote, per a complaint from me.	9 years ago
Robert Haas	f1b4c771ea	Fix reporting of constraint violations for table partitioning. ... 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	9 years ago
Tom Lane	257d815720	Fix unstable regression test results. ... Commit 2ac3ef7a0 added a query with an underdetermined output row order; it has failed multiple times in the buildfarm since then. Add an ORDER BY to fix. Also, don't rely on a DROP CASCADE to drop in a well-determined order; that hasn't failed yet but I don't trust it much, and we're not saving any typing by using CASCADE anyway.	9 years ago
Robert Haas	2ac3ef7a01	Fix tuple routing in cases where tuple descriptors don't match. ... 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	9 years ago
Robert Haas	f0e44751d7	Implement table partitioning. ... 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.	9 years ago
Tom Lane	a3c7a993d5	Make INSERT-from-multiple-VALUES-rows handle targetlist indirection better. ... Previously, if an INSERT with multiple rows of VALUES had indirection (array subscripting or field selection) in its target-columns list, the parser handled that by applying transformAssignedExpr() to each element of each VALUES row independently. This led to having ArrayRef assignment nodes or FieldStore nodes in each row of the VALUES RTE. That works for simple cases, but in bug #14265 Nuri Boardman points out that it fails if there are multiple assignments to elements/fields of the same target column. For such cases to work, rewriteTargetListIU() has to nest the ArrayRefs or FieldStores together to produce a single expression to be assigned to the column. But it failed to find them in the top-level targetlist and issued an error about "multiple assignments to same column". We could possibly fix this by teaching the rewriter to apply rewriteTargetListIU to each VALUES row separately, but that would be messy (it would change the output rowtype of the VALUES RTE, for example) and inefficient. Instead, let's fix the parser so that the VALUES RTE outputs are just the user-specified values, cast to the right type if necessary, and then the ArrayRefs or FieldStores are applied in the top-level targetlist to Vars representing the RTE's outputs. This is the same parsetree representation already used for similar cases with INSERT/SELECT syntax, so it allows simplifications in ruleutils.c, which no longer needs to treat INSERT-from-multiple-VALUES as its own special case. This implementation works by applying transformAssignedExpr to the VALUES entries as before, and then stripping off any ArrayRefs or FieldStores it adds. With lots of VALUES rows it would be noticeably more efficient to not add those nodes in the first place. But that's just an optimization not a bug fix, and there doesn't seem to be any good way to do it without significant refactoring. (A non-invasive answer would be to apply transformAssignedExpr + stripping to just the first VALUES row, and then just forcibly cast remaining rows to the same data types exposed in the first row. But this way would lead to different, not-INSERT-specific errors being reported in casting failure cases, so it doesn't seem very nice.) So leave that for later; this patch at least isn't making the per-row parsing work worse, and it does make the finished parsetree smaller, saving rewriter and planner work. Catversion bump because stored rules containing such INSERTs would need to change. Because of that, no back-patch, even though this is a very long-standing bug. Report: <20160727005725.7438.26021@wrigleys.postgresql.org> Discussion: <9578.1469645245@sss.pgh.pa.us>	10 years ago
Robert Haas	97e8346851	Regression tests for TOAST. ... Kevin Grittner, per discussion of bug #5989	15 years ago
Tom Lane	d841cc44c5	A few regression tests for VALUES, from Gavin Sherry.	20 years ago
Bruce Momjian	dd4ca824cc	Reports missing values as bad. ... BAD: INSERT INTO tab (col1, col2) VALUES ('val1'); GOOD: INSERT INTO tab (col1, col2) VALUES ('val1', 'val2'); Regress tests against DEFAULT and normal values as they're managed slightly different. Rod Taylor	24 years ago
Bruce Momjian	97b4e5ad30	Add INSERT(..., DEFAULT, ). ... Rod Taylor	24 years ago