| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This back-patches commit 32470825d36d99a81347ee36c181d609c952c061
into 9.6, primarily to make buildfarm member culicidae happy.
Unlike the HEAD patch, avoid changing the existing API of
CreateParallelContext; instead we just switch to using
CreateParallelContextForExternalFunction, even for core functions.
Petr Jelinek, with a bunch of basically-cosmetic adjustments by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/548f9c1d-eafa-e3fa-9da8-f0cc2f654e60@2ndquadrant.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
On EXEC_BACKEND builds, this can fail if ASLR is in use.
Backpatch to 9.5. On master, completely remove the bgw_main field
completely, since there is no situation in which it is safe for an
EXEC_BACKEND build. On 9.6 and 9.5, leave the field intact to avoid
breaking things for third-party code that doesn't care about working
under EXEC_BACKEND. Prior to 9.5, there are no in-core bgworker
entrypoints.
Petr Jelinek, reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/09d8ad33-4287-a09b-a77f-77f8761adb5e@2ndquadrant.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I found that half a dozen (nearly 5%) of our AllocSetContextCreate calls
had typos in the context-sizing parameters. While none of these led to
especially significant problems, they did create minor inefficiencies,
and it's now clear that expecting people to copy-and-paste those calls
accurately is not a great idea. Let's reduce the risk of future errors
by introducing single macros that encapsulate the common use-cases.
Three such macros are enough to cover all but two special-purpose contexts;
those two calls can be left as-is, I think.
While this patch doesn't in itself improve matters for third-party
extensions, it doesn't break anything for them either, and they can
gradually adopt the simplified notation over time.
In passing, change TopMemoryContext to use the default allocation
parameters. Formerly it could only be extended 8K at a time. That was
probably reasonable when this code was written; but nowadays we create
many more contexts than we did then, so that it's not unusual to have a
couple hundred K in TopMemoryContext, even without considering various
dubious code that sticks other things there. There seems no good reason
not to let it use growing blocks like most other contexts.
Back-patch to 9.6, mostly because that's still close enough to HEAD that
it's easy to do so, and keeping the branches in sync can be expected to
avoid some future back-patching pain. The bugs fixed by these changes
don't seem to be significant enough to justify fixing them further back.
Discussion: <21072.1472321324@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
HandleParallelMessages leaked memory into the caller's context. Since it's
called from ProcessInterrupts, there is basically zero certainty as to what
CurrentMemoryContext is, which means we could be leaking into long-lived
contexts. Over the processing of many worker messages that would grow to
be a problem. Things could be even worse than just a leak, if we happened
to service the interrupt while ErrorContext is current: elog.c thinks it
can reset that on its own whim, possibly yanking storage out from under
HandleParallelMessages.
Give HandleParallelMessages its own dedicated context instead, which we can
reset during each call to ensure there's no accumulation of wasted memory.
Discussion: <16610.1472222135@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The previous coding here was capable of adding a "parallel worker" context
line to errors that were not, in fact, returned from a parallel worker.
Instead of using an errcontext callback to add that annotation, just paste
it onto the message by hand; this looks uglier but is more reliable.
Discussion: <19757.1472151987@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As noted by Alvaro, there are CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls in the shm_mq.c
functions called by HandleParallelMessages(). I believe they're all
unreachable since we always pass nowait = true, but it doesn't seem like
a great idea to assume that no such call will ever be reachable from
HandleParallelMessages(). If that did happen, there would be a risk of a
recursive call to HandleParallelMessages(), which it does not appear to be
designed for --- for example, there's nothing that would prevent
out-of-order processing of received messages. And certainly such cases
cannot easily be tested. So let's prevent it by holding off interrupts for
the duration of the function. Back-patch to 9.5 which contains identical
code.
Discussion: <14869.1470083848@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
ParallelMessagePending *must* be marked volatile, because it's set
by a signal handler. On the other hand, it's pointless for
HandleParallelMessageInterrupt to save/restore errno; that must be,
and is, done at the outer level of the SIGUSR1 signal handler.
Calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() inside HandleParallelMessages, which itself
is called from CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), seems both useless and hazardous.
The comment claiming that this is needed to handle the error queue going
away is certainly misguided, in any case.
Improve a couple of error message texts, and use
ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE to report loss of parallel worker
connection, since that's what's used in e.g. tqueue.c. (Maybe it would be
worth inventing a dedicated ERRCODE for this type of failure? But I do not
think ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR is appropriate.)
Minor stylistic cleanups.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, workers sent data to the leader using the client encoding.
That mostly worked, but the leader the converted the data back to the
server encoding. Since not all encoding conversions are reversible,
that could provoke failures. Fix by using the database encoding for
all communication between worker and leader.
Also, while temporary changes to GUC settings, as from the SET clause
of a function, are in general OK for parallel query, changing
client_encoding this way inside of a parallel worker is not OK.
Previously, that would have confused the leader; with these changes,
it would not confuse the leader, but it wouldn't do anything either.
So refuse such changes in parallel workers.
Also, the previous code naively assumed that when it received a
NotifyResonse from the worker, it could pass that directly back to the
user. But now that worker-to-leader communication always uses the
database encoding, that's clearly no longer correct - though,
actually, the old way was always broken for V2 clients. So
disassemble and reconstitute the message instead.
Issues reported by Peter Eisentraut. Patch by me, reviewed by
Peter Eisentraut.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Discussion: <bfd204ab-ab1a-792a-b345-0274a09a4b5f@2ndquadrant.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The fact that no workers were successfully launched in the previous
iteration does not excuse us from setting up properly to try again.
This appears to explain crashes I saw in parallel regression testing
due to error_mqh being NULL when it shouldn't be.
Minor other cosmetic fixes too.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Transmit the leader's temp-namespace state to workers. This is important
because without it, the workers do not really have the same search path
as the leader. For example, there is no good reason (and no extant code
either) to prevent a worker from executing a temp function that the
leader created previously; but as things stood it would fail to find the
temp function, and then either fail or execute the wrong function entirely.
We still prohibit a worker from creating a temp namespace on its own.
In effect, a worker can only see the session's temp namespace if the leader
had created it before starting the worker, which seems like the right
semantics.
Also, transmit the leader's BackendId to workers, and arrange for workers
to use that when determining the physical file path of a temp relation
belonging to their session. While the original intent was to prevent such
accesses entirely, there were a number of holes in that, notably in places
like dbsize.c which assume they can safely access temp rels of other
sessions anyway. We might as well get this right, as a small down payment
on someday allowing workers to access the leader's temp tables. (With
this change, directly using "MyBackendId" as a relation or buffer backend
ID is deprecated; you should use BackendIdForTempRelations() instead.
I left a couple of such uses alone though, as they're not going to be
reachable in parallel workers until we do something about localbuf.c.)
Move the thou-shalt-not-access-thy-leader's-temp-tables prohibition down
into localbuf.c, which is where it actually matters, instead of having it
in relation_open(). This amounts to recognizing that access to temp
tables' catalog entries is perfectly safe in a worker, it's only the data
in local buffers that is problematic.
Having done all that, we can get rid of the test in has_parallel_hazard()
that says that use of a temp table's rowtype is unsafe in parallel workers.
That test was unduly expensive, and if we really did need such a
prohibition, that was not even close to being a bulletproof guard for it.
(For example, any user-defined function executed in a parallel worker
might have attempted such access.)
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
That way, if the result overflows size_t, you'll get an error instead
of undefined behavior, which seems like a plus. This also has the
effect of casting the number of workers from int to Size, which is
better because it's harder to overflow int than size_t.
Dilip Kumar reported this issue and provided a patch upon which this
patch is based, but his version did use mul_size.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Originally, we didn't have nworkers_launched, so code that used parallel
contexts had to be preprared for the possibility that not all of the
workers requested actually got launched. But now we can count on knowing
the number of workers that were successfully launched, which can shave
off a few cycles and simplify some code slightly.
Amit Kapila, reviewed by Haribabu Kommi, per a suggestion from Peter
Geoghegan.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When force_parallel_mode = true, we enable the parallel mode restrictions
for all queries for which this is believed to be safe. For the subset of
those queries believed to be safe to run entirely within a worker, we spin
up a worker and run the query there instead of running it in the
original process. When force_parallel_mode = regress, make additional
changes to allow the regression tests to run cleanly even though parallel
workers have been injected under the hood.
Taken together, this facilitates both better user testing and better
regression testing of the parallelism code.
Robert Haas, with help from Amit Kapila and Rushabh Lathia.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For locking purposes, we now regard heavyweight locks as mutually
non-conflicting between cooperating parallel processes. There are some
possible pitfalls to this approach that are not to be taken lightly,
but it works OK for now and can be changed later if we find a better
approach. Without this, it's very easy for parallel queries to
silently self-deadlock if the user backend holds strong relation locks.
Robert Haas, with help from Amit Kapila. Thanks to Noah Misch and
Andres Freund for extensive discussion of possible issues with this
approach.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch certain files through 9.1
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Up until now, the total amount of data that could be passed to a
background worker at startup was one datum, which can be a small as
4 bytes on some systems. That's enough to pass a dsm_handle or an
array index, but not much else. Add a bgw_extra flag to the
BackgroundWorker struct, allowing up to 128 bytes to be passed to
a new worker on any platform.
Use this to fix a problem I recently discovered with the parallel
context machinery added in 9.5: the master assigns each worker an
array index, and each worker subsequently assigns itself an array
index, and there's nothing to guarantee that the two sets of indexes
match, leading to chaos.
Normally, I would not back-patch the change to add bgw_extra, since it
is basically a feature addition. However, since 9.5 is still in beta
and there seems to be no other sensible way to repair the broken
parallel context machinery, back-patch to 9.5. Existing background
worker code can ignore the bgw_extra field without a problem, but
might need to be recompiled since the structure size has changed.
Report and patch by me. Review by Amit Kapila.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit b0b0d84b3d663a148022e900ebfc164284a95f55 purported to make it
possible to relaunch workers using the same parallel context, but it had
an unpleasant race condition: we might reinitialize after the workers
have sent their last control message but before they have dettached the
DSM, leaving to crashes. Repair by introducing a new ParallelContext
operation, ReinitializeParallelDSM.
Adjust execParallel.c to use this new support, so that we can rescan a
Gather node by relaunching workers but without needing to recreate the
DSM.
Amit Kapila, with some adjustments by me. Extracted from latest parallel
sequential scan patch.
|
| |
|
|
| |
CharSyam
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This may allow some callers to avoid the overhead involved in tearing
down a parallel context and then setting up a new one, which means
releasing the DSM and then allocating and populating a new one. I
suspect we'll want to revise the Gather node to make use of this new
capability, but even if not it may be useful elsewhere and requires
very little additional code.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In order for this to be safe, the code which hands true serializability
will need to taught that the SIRead locks taken by a parallel worker
pertain to the same transaction as those taken by the parallel leader.
Some further changes may be needed as well. Until the necessary
adaptations are made, don't generate parallel plans in serializable
mode, and if a previously-generated parallel plan is used after
serializable mode has been activated, run it serially.
This fixes a bug in commit 7aea8e4f2daa4b39ca9d1309a0c4aadb0f7ed81b.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
check_role() tries to verify that the user has permission to become the
requested role, but this is inappropriate in a parallel worker, which
needs to exactly recreate the master's authorization settings. So skip
the check in that case.
This fixes a bug in commit 924bcf4f16d54c55310b28f77686608684734f42.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Starting a parallel worker transaction changes our notion of which XIDs
are in-progress or committed, and our notion of the current command
counter ID. Therefore, our view of these caches prior to starting
this transaction may no longer valid. Defend against that by clearing
them.
This fixes a bug in commit 924bcf4f16d54c55310b28f77686608684734f42.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit 2bd9e412f92bc6a68f3e8bcb18e04955cc35001d introduced a mechanism
for relaying protocol messages from a background worker to another
backend via a shm_mq. However, there was no provision for shutting
down the communication channel. Therefore, a protocol message sent
late in the shutdown sequence, such as a DEBUG message resulting from
cranking up log_min_messages, could crash the server. To fix, install
an on_dsm_detach callback that disables sending messages to the shm_mq
when the associated DSM is detached.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
If a transaction or subtransaction creates a ParallelContext but ends
without calling InitializeParallelDSM, the previous code would
seg fault. Fix that.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Per request from Peter Eisentraut.
|
|
|
This does four basic things. First, it provides convenience routines
to coordinate the startup and shutdown of parallel workers. Second,
it synchronizes various pieces of state (e.g. GUCs, combo CID
mappings, transaction snapshot) from the parallel group leader to the
worker processes. Third, it prohibits various operations that would
result in unsafe changes to that state while parallelism is active.
Finally, it propagates events that would result in an ErrorResponse,
NoticeResponse, or NotifyResponse message being sent to the client
from the parallel workers back to the master, from which they can then
be sent on to the client.
Robert Haas, Amit Kapila, Noah Misch, Rushabh Lathia, Jeevan Chalke.
Suggestions and review from Andres Freund, Heikki Linnakangas, Noah
Misch, Simon Riggs, Euler Taveira, and Jim Nasby.
|
