Fix failure with initplans used conditionally during EvalPlanQual rechecks.

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

1 files changed, 42 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeSubplan.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeSubplan.c
index 6b370750c5b..63de981034d 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeSubplan.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeSubplan.c
@@ -1009,6 +1009,17 @@ ExecInitSubPlan(SubPlan *subplan, PlanState *parent)
  * of initplans: we don't run the subplan until/unless we need its output.
  * Note that this routine MUST clear the execPlan fields of the plan's
  * output parameters after evaluating them!
+ *
+ * The results of this function are stored in the EState associated with the
+ * ExprContext (particularly, its ecxt_param_exec_vals); any pass-by-ref
+ * result Datums are allocated in the EState's per-query memory.  The passed
+ * econtext can be any ExprContext belonging to that EState; which one is
+ * important only to the extent that the ExprContext's per-tuple memory
+ * context is used to evaluate any parameters passed down to the subplan.
+ * (Thus in principle, the shorter-lived the ExprContext the better, since
+ * that data isn't needed after we return.  In practice, because initplan
+ * parameters are never more complex than Vars, Aggrefs, etc, evaluating them
+ * currently never leaks any memory anyway.)
  * ----------------------------------------------------------------
  */
 void
@@ -1196,6 +1207,37 @@ ExecSetParamPlan(SubPlanState *node, ExprContext *econtext)
 }
 
 /*
+ * ExecSetParamPlanMulti
+ *
+ * Apply ExecSetParamPlan to evaluate any not-yet-evaluated initplan output
+ * parameters whose ParamIDs are listed in "params".  Any listed params that
+ * are not initplan outputs are ignored.
+ *
+ * As with ExecSetParamPlan, any ExprContext belonging to the current EState
+ * can be used, but in principle a shorter-lived ExprContext is better than a
+ * longer-lived one.
+ */
+void
+ExecSetParamPlanMulti(const Bitmapset *params, ExprContext *econtext)
+{
+	int			paramid;
+
+	paramid = -1;
+	while ((paramid = bms_next_member(params, paramid)) >= 0)
+	{
+		ParamExecData *prm = &(econtext->ecxt_param_exec_vals[paramid]);
+
+		if (prm->execPlan != NULL)
+		{
+			/* Parameter not evaluated yet, so go do it */
+			ExecSetParamPlan(prm->execPlan, econtext);
+			/* ExecSetParamPlan should have processed this param... */
+			Assert(prm->execPlan == NULL);
+		}
+	}
+}
+
+/*
  * Mark an initplan as needing recalculation
  */
 void