es_leaf_result_relations doesn't exist; perhaps this was an old name
for es_tuple_routing_result_relations, or maybe this comment has gone
unmaintained through multiple rounds of whacking the code around.
Related comment in execnodes.h was both obsolete and ungrammatical.
If there are many ExecRowMark structs, we spent O(N^2) time in
ExecFindRowMark during executor startup. Once upon a time this was
not of great concern, but the addition of native partitioning has
squeezed out enough other costs that this can become the dominant
overhead in some use-cases for tables with many partitions.
To fix, simply replace that List data structure with an array.
This adds a little bit of cost to execCurrentOf(), but not much,
and anyway that code path is neither of large importance nor very
efficient now. If we ever decide it is a bottleneck, constructing a
hash table for lookup-by-tableoid would likely be the thing to do.
Per complaint from Amit Langote, though this is different from
his fix proposal.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
Commit 9a3cebeaa changed things so that parallel workers didn't obtain
any lock of their own on tables they access. That was clearly a bad
idea, but I'd mistakenly supposed that it was the intended end result
of the series of patches for simplifying the executor's lock management.
Undo that change in relation_open(), and adjust ExecOpenScanRelation()
so that it gets the correct lock if inside a parallel worker.
In passing, clean up some more obsolete comments about when locks
are acquired.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
We already have appropriate locks on every relation listed in the
query's rangetable before we reach the executor. Take the next step
in exploiting that knowledge by removing code that worries about
taking locks on non-leaf result relations in a partitioned table.
In particular, get rid of ExecLockNonLeafAppendTables and a stanza in
InitPlan that asserts we already have locks on certain such tables.
In passing, clean up some now-obsolete comments in InitPlan.
Amit Langote, reviewed by David Rowley and Jesper Pedersen,
and whacked around a bit more by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
Instead of doing a lot of list_nth() accesses to es_range_table,
create a flattened pointer array during executor startup and index
into that to get at individual RangeTblEntrys.
This eliminates one source of O(N^2) behavior with lots of partitions.
(I'm not exactly convinced that it's the most important source, but
it's an easy one to fix.)
Amit Langote and David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
Create an array estate->es_relations[] paralleling the es_range_table,
and store references to Relations (relcache entries) there, so that any
given RT entry is opened and closed just once per executor run. Scan
nodes typically still call ExecOpenScanRelation, but ExecCloseScanRelation
is no more; relation closing is now done centrally in ExecEndPlan.
This is slightly more complex than one would expect because of the
interactions with relcache references held in ResultRelInfo nodes.
The general convention is now that ResultRelInfo->ri_RelationDesc does
not represent a separate relcache reference and so does not need to be
explicitly closed; but there is an exception for ResultRelInfos in the
es_trig_target_relations list, which are manufactured by
ExecGetTriggerResultRel and have to be cleaned up by
ExecCleanUpTriggerState. (That much was true all along, but these
ResultRelInfos are now more different from others than they used to be.)
To allow the partition pruning logic to make use of es_relations[] rather
than having its own relcache references, adjust PartitionedRelPruneInfo
to store an RT index rather than a relation OID.
Amit Langote, reviewed by David Rowley and Jesper Pedersen,
some mods by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
Instead of locking tables during executor startup, just Assert that
suitable locks were obtained already during the parse/plan pipeline
(or re-obtained by the plan cache). This must be so, else we have a
hazard that concurrent DDL has invalidated the plan.
This is pretty inefficient as well as undercommented, but it's all going
to go away shortly, so I didn't try hard. This commit is just another
attempt to use the buildfarm to see if we've missed anything in the plan
to simplify the executor's table management.
Note that the change needed here in relation_open() exposes that
parallel workers now really are accessing tables without holding any
lock of their own, whereas they were not doing that before this commit.
This does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about that aspect of parallel
query; it does not seem like a good design, and we now know that it's
had exactly no actual testing. I think that we should modify parallel
query so that that change can be reverted.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
I (Andres) was more than a bit hasty in committing 33001fd7a7
after last minute changes, leading to a number of problems (jit output
was only shown for JIT in parallel workers, and just EXPLAIN without
ANALYZE didn't work). Lukas luckily found these issues quickly.
Instead of combining instrumentation in in standard_ExecutorEnd(), do
so on demand in the new ExplainPrintJITSummary().
Also update a documentation example of the JIT output, changed in
52050ad8eb.
Author: Lukas Fittl, with minor changes by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAP53PkxmgJht69pabxBXJBM+0oc6kf3KHMborLP7H2ouJ0CCtQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 11, where JIT compilation was introduced
Instead of recomputing the required lock levels in all these places,
just use what commit fdba460a2 made the parser store in the RTE fields.
This already simplifies the code measurably in these places, and
follow-on changes will remove a bunch of no-longer-needed infrastructure.
In a few cases, this change causes us to acquire a higher lock level
than we did before. This is OK primarily because said higher lock level
should've been acquired already at query parse time; thus, we're saving
a useless extra trip through the shared lock manager to acquire a lesser
lock alongside the original lock. The only known exception to this is
that re-execution of a previously planned SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE query,
for a table that uses ROW_MARK_REFERENCE or ROW_MARK_COPY methods, might
have gotten only AccessShareLock before. Now it will get RowShareLock
like the first execution did, which seems fine.
While there's more to do, push it in this state anyway, to let the
buildfarm help verify that nothing bad happened.
Amit Langote, reviewed by David Rowley and Jesper Pedersen,
and whacked around a bit more by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
It's inefficient to use a single slot for mapping between tuple
descriptors for multiple tuples, as previously done when using
ConvertPartitionTupleSlot(), as that means the slot's tuple descriptors
change for every tuple.
Previously we also, via ConvertPartitionTupleSlot(), built new tuples
after the mapping even in cases where we, immediately afterwards,
access individual columns again.
Refactor the code so one slot, on demand, is used for each
partition. That avoids having to change the descriptor (and allows to
use the more efficient "fixed" tuple slots). Then use slot->slot
mapping, to avoid unnecessarily forming a tuple.
As the naming between the tuple and slot mapping functions wasn't
consistent, rename them to execute_attr_map_{tuple,slot}. It's likely
that we'll also rename convert_tuples_by_* to denote that these
functions "only" build a map, but that's left for later.
Author: Amit Khandekar and Amit Langote, editorialized by me
Reviewed-By: Amit Langote, Amit Khandekar, Andres Freund
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9fR0wRNeAE8VqffNTyONS_UfFPRpqxhnD9Q42vZB+Jvpg@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/e4f9d743-cd4b-efb0-7574-da21d86a7f36%40lab.ntt.co.jp
Backpatch: -
Add RangeTblEntry.rellockmode, which records the appropriate lock mode for
each RTE_RELATION rangetable entry (either AccessShareLock, RowShareLock,
or RowExclusiveLock depending on the RTE's role in the query).
This patch creates the field and makes all creators of RTE nodes fill it
in reasonably, but for the moment nothing much is done with it. The plan
is to replace assorted post-parser logic that re-determines the right
lockmode to use with simple uses of rte->rellockmode. For now, just add
Asserts in each of those places that the rellockmode matches what they are
computing today. (In some cases the match isn't perfect, so the Asserts
are weaker than you might expect; but this seems OK, as per discussion.)
This passes check-world for me, but it seems worth pushing in this state
to see if the buildfarm finds any problems in cases I failed to test.
catversion bump due to change of stored rules.
Amit Langote, reviewed by David Rowley and Jesper Pedersen,
and whacked around a bit more by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
Upcoming changes introduce further types of tuple table slots, in
preparation of making table storage pluggable. New storage methods
will have different representation of tuples, therefore the slot
accessor should refer explicitly to heap tuples.
Instead of just renaming the functions, split it into one function
that accepts heap tuples not residing in buffers, and one accepting
ones in buffers. Previously one function was used for both, but that
was a bit awkward already, and splitting will allow us to represent
slot types for tuples in buffers and normal memory separately.
This is split out from the patch introducing abstract slots, as this
largely consists out of mechanical changes.
Author: Ashutosh Bapat
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180220224318.gw4oe5jadhpmcdnm@alap3.anarazel.de
Previously, when using parallel query, EXPLAIN (ANALYZE)'s JIT
compilation timings did not include the overhead from doing so on the
workers. Fix that.
We do so by simply aggregating the cost of doing JIT compilation on
workers and the leader together. Arguably that's not quite accurate,
because the total time spend doing so is spent in parallel - but it's
hard to do much better. For additional detail, when VERBOSE is
specified, the stats for workers are displayed separately.
Author: Amit Khandekar and Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9eLrz51RK_gTkod+71iDcjpB_N8eC6vU2AW-VicsAERpQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 11-
The EvalPlanQual machinery assumes that any initplans (that is,
uncorrelated sub-selects) used during an EPQ recheck would have already
been evaluated during the main query; this is implicit in the fact that
execPlan pointers are not copied into the EPQ estate's es_param_exec_vals.
But it's possible for that assumption to fail, if the initplan is only
reached conditionally. For example, a sub-select inside a CASE expression
could be reached during a recheck when it had not been previously, if the
CASE test depends on a column that was just updated.
This bug is old, appearing to date back to my rewrite of EvalPlanQual in
commit 9f2ee8f28, but was not detected until Kyle Samson reported a case.
To fix, force all not-yet-evaluated initplans used within the EPQ plan
subtree to be evaluated at the start of the recheck, before entering the
EPQ environment. This could be inefficient, if such an initplan is
expensive and goes unused again during the recheck --- but that's piling
one layer of improbability atop another. It doesn't seem worth adding
more complexity to prevent that, at least not in the back branches.
It was convenient to use the new-in-v11 ExecEvalParamExecParams function
to implement this, but I didn't like either its name or the specifics of
its API, so revise that.
Back-patch all the way. Rather than rewrite the patch to avoid depending
on bms_next_member() in the oldest branches, I chose to back-patch that
function into 9.4 and 9.3. (This isn't the first time back-patches have
needed that, and it exhausted my patience.) I also chose to back-patch
some test cases added by commits 71404af2a and 342a1ffa2 into 9.4 and 9.3,
so that the 9.x versions of eval-plan-qual.spec are all the same.
Andrew Gierth diagnosed the problem and contributed the added test cases,
though the actual code changes are by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/A033A40A-B234-4324-BE37-272279F7B627@tripadvisor.com
Currently, we release the asynchronous resources as soon as it is evident
that no more rows will be needed e.g. when a Limit is filled. This can be
problematic especially for custom and foreign scans where we can scan
backward. Fix that by disallowing the shutting down of resources in such
cases.
Reported-by: Robert Haas
Analysed-by: Robert Haas and Amit Kapila
Author: Amit Kapila
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas
Backpatch-through: 9.6 where this code was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/86137f17-1dfb-42f9-7421-82fd786b04a1@anayrat.info
These changes were put in at some stage of the development process, but
are unnecessary and should not have made it into the final patch. Mea
culpa.
Per gripe from Andreas Freund
Backpatch to REL_11_STABLE
Due to inlining it previously was possible that an ExprContext's
shutdown callback pointed to a JITed function. As the JIT context
previously was shut down before the shutdown callbacks were called,
that could lead to segfaults. Fix the ordering.
Reported-By: Dmitry Dolgov
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+q6zcWO7CeAJtHBxgcHn_hj+PenM=tvG0RJ93X1uEJ86+76Ug@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 11-, where JIT compilation was added
Starting with commit f0e44751d7, ExecConstraints was in charge of
running the partition constraint; commit 19c47e7c82 modified that so
that caller could request to skip that checking depending on some
conditions, but that commit and 15ce775faa together introduced a small
bug there which caused ExecInsert to request skipping the constraint
check but have this not be honored -- in effect doing the check twice.
This could have been fixed in a very small patch, but on further
analysis of the involved function and its callsites, it turns out to be
simpler to give the responsibility of checking the partition constraint
fully to the caller, and return ExecConstraints to its original
(pre-partitioning) shape where it only checked tuple descriptor-related
constraints. Each caller must do partition constraint checking on its
own schedule, which is more convenient after commit 2f17844104 anyway.
Reported-by: David Rowley
Author: David Rowley, Álvaro Herrera
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Amit Khandekar, Simon Riggs
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f8w8+awsxgea8wt7_UX8qzOQ=Tm1LD+U1fHqBAkXxkW2w@mail.gmail.com
Recent gcc can warn about switch-case fall throughs that are not
explicitly labeled as intentional. This seems like a good thing,
so clean up the warnings exposed thereby by labeling all such
cases with comments that gcc will recognize.
In files that already had one or more suitable comments, I generally
matched the existing style of those. Otherwise I went with
/* FALLTHROUGH */, which is one of the spellings approved at the
more-restrictive-than-default level -Wimplicit-fallthrough=4.
(At the default level you can also spell it /* FALL ?THRU */,
and it's not picky about case. What you can't do is include
additional text in the same comment, so some existing comments
containing versions of this aren't good enough.)
Testing with gcc 8.0.1 (Fedora 28's current version), I found that
I also had to put explicit "break"s after elog(ERROR) or ereport(ERROR);
apparently, for this purpose gcc doesn't recognize that those don't
return. That seems like possibly a gcc bug, but it's fine because
in most places we did that anyway; so this amounts to a visit from the
style police.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15083.1525207729@sss.pgh.pa.us
This reverts commits d204ef6377,
83454e3c2b and a few more commits thereafter
(complete list at the end) related to MERGE feature.
While the feature was fully functional, with sufficient test coverage and
necessary documentation, it was felt that some parts of the executor and
parse-analyzer can use a different design and it wasn't possible to do that in
the available time. So it was decided to revert the patch for PG11 and retry
again in the future.
Thanks again to all reviewers and bug reporters.
List of commits reverted, in reverse chronological order:
f1464c5380 Improve parse representation for MERGE
ddb4158579 MERGE syntax diagram correction
530e69e59b Allow cpluspluscheck to pass by renaming variable
01b88b4df5 MERGE minor errata
3af7b2b0d4 MERGE fix variable warning in non-assert builds
a5d86181ec MERGE INSERT allows only one VALUES clause
4b2d44031f MERGE post-commit review
4923550c20 Tab completion for MERGE
aa3faa3c7a WITH support in MERGE
83454e3c2b New files for MERGE
d204ef6377 MERGE SQL Command following SQL:2016
Author: Pavan Deolasee
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
When an update moves a row between partitions (supported since
2f17844104), our normal logic for following update chains in READ
COMMITTED mode doesn't work anymore. Cross partition updates are
modeled as an delete from the old and insert into the new
partition. No ctid chain exists across partitions, and there's no
convenient space to introduce that link.
Not throwing an error in a partitioned context when one would have
been thrown without partitioning is obviously problematic. This commit
introduces infrastructure to detect when a tuple has been moved, not
just plainly deleted. That allows to throw an error when encountering
a deletion that's actually a move, while attempting to following a
ctid chain.
The row deleted as part of a cross partition update is marked by
pointing it's t_ctid to an invalid block, instead of self as a normal
update would. That was deemed to be the least invasive and most
future proof way to represent the knowledge, given how few infomask
bits are there to be recycled (there's also some locking issues with
using infomask bits).
External code following ctid chains should be updated to check for
moved tuples. The most likely consequence of not doing so is a missed
error.
Author: Amul Sul, editorialized by me
Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Pavan Deolasee, Andres Freund, Robert Haas
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b95PkwojoYfz0bzXU8OokcTVGzN6vYGCNVUukeUDrnF3dw@mail.gmail.com
Also enable this for postgres_fdw.
Etsuro Fujita, based on an earlier patch by Amit Langote. The larger
patch series of which this is a part has been reviewed by Amit
Langote, David Fetter, Maksim Milyutin, Álvaro Herrera, Stephen Frost,
and me. Minor documentation changes to the final version by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/29906a26-da12-8c86-4fb9-d8f88442f2b9@lab.ntt.co.jp
MERGE performs actions that modify rows in the target table
using a source table or query. MERGE provides a single SQL
statement that can conditionally INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE rows
a task that would other require multiple PL statements.
e.g.
MERGE INTO target AS t
USING source AS s
ON t.tid = s.sid
WHEN MATCHED AND t.balance > s.delta THEN
UPDATE SET balance = t.balance - s.delta
WHEN MATCHED THEN
DELETE
WHEN NOT MATCHED AND s.delta > 0 THEN
INSERT VALUES (s.sid, s.delta)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
DO NOTHING;
MERGE works with regular and partitioned tables, including
column and row security enforcement, as well as support for
row, statement and transition triggers.
MERGE is optimized for OLTP and is parameterizable, though
also useful for large scale ETL/ELT. MERGE is not intended
to be used in preference to existing single SQL commands
for INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE since there is some overhead.
MERGE can be used statically from PL/pgSQL.
MERGE does not yet support inheritance, write rules,
RETURNING clauses, updatable views or foreign tables.
MERGE follows SQL Standard per the most recent SQL:2016.
Includes full tests and documentation, including full
isolation tests to demonstrate the concurrent behavior.
This version written from scratch in 2017 by Simon Riggs,
using docs and tests originally written in 2009. Later work
from Pavan Deolasee has been both complex and deep, leaving
the lead author credit now in his hands.
Extensive discussion of concurrency from Peter Geoghegan,
with thanks for the time and effort contributed.
Various issues reported via sqlsmith by Andreas Seltenreich
Authors: Pavan Deolasee, Simon Riggs
Reviewer: Peter Geoghegan, Amit Langote, Tomas Vondra, Simon Riggs
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkJdBuxj9PO=2QaO9-3h3xGbQPZ34kJH=HukRekwM-GZg@mail.gmail.com
Currently adding a column to a table with a non-NULL default results in
a rewrite of the table. For large tables this can be both expensive and
disruptive. This patch removes the need for the rewrite as long as the
default value is not volatile. The default expression is evaluated at
the time of the ALTER TABLE and the result stored in a new column
(attmissingval) in pg_attribute, and a new column (atthasmissing) is set
to true. Any existing row when fetched will be supplied with the
attmissingval. New rows will have the supplied value or the default and
so will never need the attmissingval.
Any time the table is rewritten all the atthasmissing and attmissingval
settings for the attributes are cleared, as they are no longer needed.
The most visible code change from this is in heap_attisnull, which
acquires a third TupleDesc argument, allowing it to detect a missing
value if there is one. In many cases where it is known that there will
not be any (e.g. catalog relations) NULL can be passed for this
argument.
Andrew Dunstan, heavily modified from an original patch from Serge
Rielau.
Reviewed by Tom Lane, Andres Freund, Tomas Vondra and David Rowley.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/31e2e921-7002-4c27-59f5-51f08404c858@2ndQuadrant.com
Commit eb7ed3f306 enabled unique constraints on partitioned tables,
but one thing that was not working properly is INSERT/ON CONFLICT.
This commit introduces a new node keeps state related to the ON CONFLICT
clause per partition, and fills it when that partition is about to be
used for tuple routing.
Author: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera
Reviewed-by: Etsuro Fujita, Pavan Deolasee
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180228004602.cwdyralmg5ejdqkq@alvherre.pgsql
Coverity complained that this check is pointless, and it's right.
There is no case where we'd call ExecutorStart with a null plannedstmt,
and if we did, it'd have crashed before here. Thinko in commit cc415a56d.
This adds simple cost based plan time decision about whether JIT
should be performed. jit_above_cost, jit_optimize_above_cost are
compared with the total cost of a plan, and if the cost is above them
JIT is performed / optimization is performed respectively.
For that PlannedStmt and EState have a jitFlags (es_jit_flags) field
that stores information about what JIT operations should be performed.
EState now also has a new es_jit field, which can store a
JitContext. When there are no errors the context is released in
standard_ExecutorEnd().
It is likely that the default values for jit_[optimize_]above_cost
will need to be adapted further, but in my test these values seem to
work reasonably.
Author: Andres Freund, with feedback by Peter Eisentraut
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de
The reason for doing so is that it will allow expression evaluation to
optimize based on the underlying tupledesc. In particular it will
allow to JIT tuple deforming together with the expression itself.
For that expression initialization needs to be moved after the
relevant slots are initialized - mostly unproblematic, except in the
case of nodeWorktablescan.c.
After doing so there's no need for ExecAssignResultType() and
ExecAssignResultTypeFromTL() anymore, as all former callers have been
converted to create a slot with a fixed descriptor.
When creating a slot with a fixed descriptor, tts_values/isnull can be
allocated together with the main slot, reducing allocation overhead
and increasing cache density a bit.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171206093717.vqdxe5icqttpxs3p@alap3.anarazel.de
Doing so causes EXPLAIN ANALYZE to show trigger statistics multiple
times. Commit 2f17844104 seems to
be to blame for this.
Amit Langote, revieed by Amit Khandekar, Etsuro Fujita, and me.
AclObjectKind was basically just another enumeration for object types,
and we already have a preferred one for that. It's only used in
aclcheck_error. By using ObjectType instead, we can also give some more
precise error messages, for example "index" instead of "relation".
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
At present, we always raise an ERROR if the partition constraint
is violated, but a pending patch for UPDATE tuple routing will
consider instead moving the tuple to the correct partition.
Refactor to make that simpler.
Amit Khandekar, reviewed by Amit Langote, David Rowley, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9cue54GbEzfV-61nyGpijvjZgCcghvLsB0_nL8Nm8HzCA@mail.gmail.com
Some code is moved from partition.c, which has grown very quickly lately;
splitting the executor parts out might help to keep it from getting
totally out of control. Other code is moved from execMain.c. All is
moved to a new file execPartition.c. get_partition_for_tuple now has
a new interface that more clearly separates executor concerns from
generic concerns.
Amit Langote. A slight comment tweak by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/1f0985f8-3b61-8bc4-4350-baa6d804cb6d@lab.ntt.co.jp
Up until now, we only tracked the number of parameters, which was
sufficient to allocate an array of Datums of the appropriate size,
but not sufficient to, for example, know how to serialize a Datum
stored in one of those slots. An upcoming patch wants to do that,
so add this tracking to make it possible.
Patch by me, reviewed by Tom Lane and Amit Kapila.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYqpxDKn8koHdW8BEKk8FMUL0=e8m2Qe=M+r0UBjr3tuQ@mail.gmail.com
The lower case spellings are C and C++ standard and are used in most
parts of the PostgreSQL sources. The upper case spellings are only used
in some files/modules. So standardize on the standard spellings.
The APIs for ICU, Perl, and Windows define their own TRUE and FALSE, so
those are left as is when using those APIs.
In code comments, we use the lower-case spelling for the C concepts and
keep the upper-case spelling for the SQL concepts.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
It turns out we misdiagnosed what the real problem was. Revert the
previous changes, because they may have worse consequences going
forward. A better fix is forthcoming.
The simplistic test case is kept, though disabled.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171102112019.33wb7g5wp4zpjelu@alap3.anarazel.de
If we try to run a parallel plan in serial mode because, for example,
it's going to be scanned via a cursor, but for some reason we're
already in parallel mode (for example because an outer query is
running in parallel), we'd incorrectly try to launch workers.
Fix by adding a flag to the EState, so that we can be certain that
ExecutePlan() and ExecGather()/ExecGatherMerge() will have the same
idea about whether we are executing serially or in parallel.
Report and fix by Amit Kapila with help from Kuntal Ghosh. A few
tweaks by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+_BuZrmVCeua5Eqnm4Co9DAXdM5HPAOE2J19ePbR912Q@mail.gmail.com
The previous convention doesn't lend itself to creating ResultRelInfos
lazily, as we already do in ExecGetTriggerResultRel. This patch
doesn't make anything lazier than before, but the pending patch for
UPDATE tuple routing proposes to do so (and there might be other
opportunities as well).
Amit Khandekar with some adjustments by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYPVP9Lyf6vUFA5DwxS4c--x6LOj2y36BsJaYtp62eXPQ@mail.gmail.com
When some tuple versions in an update chain are frozen due to them being
older than freeze_min_age, the xmax/xmin trail can become broken. This
breaks HOT (and probably other things). A subsequent VACUUM can break
things in more serious ways, such as leaving orphan heap-only tuples
whose root HOT redirect items were removed. This can be seen because
index creation (or REINDEX) complain like
ERROR: XX000: failed to find parent tuple for heap-only tuple at (0,7) in table "t"
Because of relfrozenxid contraints, we cannot avoid the freezing of the
early tuples, so we must cope with the results: whenever we see an Xmin
of FrozenTransactionId, consider it a match for whatever the previous
Xmax value was.
This problem seems to have appeared in 9.3 with multixact changes,
though strictly speaking it seems unrelated.
Since 9.4 we have commit 37484ad2a "Change the way we mark tuples as
frozen", so the fix is simple: just compare the raw Xmin (still stored
in the tuple header, since freezing merely set an infomask bit) to the
Xmax. But in 9.3 we rewrite the Xmin value to FrozenTransactionId, so
the original value is lost and we have nothing to compare the Xmax with.
To cope with that case we need to compare the Xmin with FrozenXid,
assume it's a match, and hope for the best. Sadly, since you can
pg_upgrade a 9.3 instance containing half-frozen pages to newer
releases, we need to keep the old check in newer versions too, which
seems a bit brittle; I hope we can somehow get rid of that.
I didn't optimize the new function for performance. The new coding is
probably a bit slower than before, since there is a function call rather
than a straight comparison, but I'd rather have it work correctly than
be fast but wrong.
This is a followup after 20b6552242 fixed a few related problems.
Apparently, in 9.6 and up there are more ways to get into trouble, but
in 9.3 - 9.5 I cannot reproduce a problem anymore with this patch, so
there must be a separate bug.
Reported-by: Peter Geoghegan
Diagnosed-by: Peter Geoghegan, Michael Paquier, Daniel Wood,
Yi Wen Wong, Álvaro
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wznm4rCrhFAiwKPWTpEw2bXDtgROZK7jWWGucXeH3D1fmA@mail.gmail.com
Haribabu Kommi, reviewed by Dilip Kumar and Rafia Sabih. Various
cosmetic changes by me to explain why this appears to be safe but
allowing inserts in parallel mode in general wouldn't be. Also, I
removed the REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW case from Haribabu's patch,
since I'm not convinced that case is OK, and hacked on the
documentation somewhat.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJrrPGdo5bak6qnPWe8Kpi8g_jfQEs-G4SYmG9y+OFaw2-dPvA@mail.gmail.com
The standard says that all changes of the same kind (insert, update, or
delete) caused in one table by a single SQL statement should be reported
in a single transition table; and by that, they mean to include foreign key
enforcement actions cascading from the statement's direct effects. It's
also reasonable to conclude that if the standard had wCTEs, they would say
that effects of wCTEs applying to the same table as each other or the outer
statement should be merged into one transition table. We weren't doing it
like that.
Hence, arrange to merge tuples from multiple update actions into a single
transition table as much as we can. There is a problem, which is that if
the firing of FK enforcement triggers and after-row triggers with
transition tables is interspersed, we might need to report more tuples
after some triggers have already seen the transition table. It seems like
a bad idea for the transition table to be mutable between trigger calls.
There's no good way around this without a major redesign of the FK logic,
so for now, resolve it by opening a new transition table each time this
happens.
Also, ensure that AFTER STATEMENT triggers fire just once per statement,
or once per transition table when we're forced to make more than one.
Previous versions of Postgres have allowed each FK enforcement query
to cause an additional firing of the AFTER STATEMENT triggers for the
referencing table, but that's certainly not per spec. (We're still
doing multiple firings of BEFORE STATEMENT triggers, though; is that
something worth changing?)
Also, forbid using transition tables with column-specific UPDATE triggers.
The spec requires such transition tables to show only the tuples for which
the UPDATE trigger would have fired, which means maintaining multiple
transition tables or else somehow filtering the contents at readout.
Maybe someday we'll bother to support that option, but it looks like a
lot of trouble for a marginal feature.
The transition tables are now managed by the AfterTriggers data structures,
rather than being directly the responsibility of ModifyTable nodes. This
removes a subtransaction-lifespan memory leak introduced by my previous
band-aid patch 3c4359521.
In passing, refactor the AfterTriggers data structures to reduce the
management overhead for them, by using arrays of structs rather than
several parallel arrays for per-query-level and per-subtransaction state.
I failed to resist the temptation to do some copy-editing on the SGML
docs about triggers, above and beyond merely documenting the effects
of this patch.
Back-patch to v10, because we don't want the semantics of transition
tables to change post-release.
Patch by me, with help and review from Thomas Munro.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170909064853.25630.12825@wrigleys.postgresql.org
It is equivalent in ANSI C to write (*funcptr) () and funcptr(). These
two styles have been applied inconsistently. After discussion, we'll
use the more verbose style for plain function pointer variables, to make
it clear that it's a variable, and the shorter style when the function
pointer is in a struct (s.func() or s->func()), because then it's clear
that it's not a plain function name, and otherwise the excessive
punctuation makes some of those invocations hard to read.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f52c16db-14ed-757d-4b48-7ef360b1631d@2ndquadrant.com
This doesn't allow routing tuple to the foreign partitions themselves,
but it permits tuples to be routed to regular partitions despite the
presence of foreign partitions in the same inheritance hierarchy.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Amit Langote and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/bc3db4c1-1693-3b8a-559f-33ad2b50b7ad@lab.ntt.co.jp
This is a mechanical change in preparation for a later commit that
will change the layout of TupleDesc. Introducing a macro to abstract
the details of where attributes are stored will allow us to change
that in separate step and revise it in future.
Author: Thomas Munro, editorialized by Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
Tom Lane