| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The error message about columns in the primary key not including all of
the partition key was unclear; reword it.
Backpatch all the way to pg11, where it appeared.
Reported-by: Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/64062533.78364.1601415362244@mail.yahoo.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This addresses a couple of issues with the so-said subject:
- Report the correct parent relation with the index actually being
rebuilt or validated. Previously, the command status remained set to
the last index created for the progress of the index build and
validation, which would be incorrect when working on a table that has
more than one index.
- Use the correct phase when waiting before the drop of the old
indexes. Previously, this was reported with the same status as when
waiting before the old indexes are marked as dead.
Author: Matthias van de Meent, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEze2WhqFgcwe1_tv=sFYhLWV2AdpfukumotJ6JNcAOQs3jufg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We require the partition key to be a subset of the set of columns
being made unique, so that physically-separate indexes on the different
partitions are sufficient to enforce the uniqueness constraint.
The existing code checked that the listed columns appear, but did not
inquire into the index semantics, which is a serious oversight given
that different index opclasses might enforce completely different
notions of uniqueness.
Ideally, perhaps, we'd just match the partition key opfamily to the
index opfamily. But hash partitioning uses hash opfamilies which we
can't directly match to btree opfamilies. Hence, look up the equality
operator in each family, and accept if it's the same operator. This
should be okay in a fairly general sense, since the equality operator
ought to precisely represent the opfamily's notion of uniqueness.
A remaining weak spot is that we don't have a cross-index-AM notion of
which opfamily member is "equality". But we know which one to use for
hash and btree AMs, and those are the only two that are relevant here
at present. (Any non-core AMs that know how to enforce equality are
out of luck, for now.)
Back-patch to v11 where this feature was introduced.
Guancheng Luo, revised a bit by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/D9C3CEF7-04E8-47A1-8300-CA1DCD5ED40D@gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit cb2fd7eac285b1b0a24eeb2b8ed4456b66c5a09f. Per
numerous buildfarm members, it was incompatible with parallel query, and
a test case assumed LP64. Back-patch to 9.5 (all supported versions).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200321224920.GB1763544@rfd.leadboat.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Until now, only selected bulk operations (e.g. COPY) did this. If a
given relfilenode received both a WAL-skipping COPY and a WAL-logged
operation (e.g. INSERT), recovery could lose tuples from the COPY. See
src/backend/access/transam/README section "Skipping WAL for New
RelFileNode" for the new coding rules. Maintainers of table access
methods should examine that section.
To maintain data durability, just before commit, we choose between an
fsync of the relfilenode and copying its contents to WAL. A new GUC,
wal_skip_threshold, guides that choice. If this change slows a workload
that creates small, permanent relfilenodes under wal_level=minimal, try
adjusting wal_skip_threshold. Users setting a timeout on COMMIT may
need to adjust that timeout, and log_min_duration_statement analysis
will reflect time consumption moving to COMMIT from commands like COPY.
Internally, this requires a reliable determination of whether
RollbackAndReleaseCurrentSubTransaction() would unlink a relation's
current relfilenode. Introduce rd_firstRelfilenodeSubid. Amend the
specification of rd_createSubid such that the field is zero when a new
rel has an old rd_node. Make relcache.c retain entries for certain
dropped relations until end of transaction.
Back-patch to 9.5 (all supported versions). This introduces a new WAL
record type, XLOG_GIST_ASSIGN_LSN, without bumping XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC. As
always, update standby systems before master systems. This changes
sizeof(RelationData) and sizeof(IndexStmt), breaking binary
compatibility for affected extensions. (The most recent commit to
affect the same class of extensions was
089e4d405d0f3b94c74a2c6a54357a84a681754b.)
Kyotaro Horiguchi, reviewed (in earlier, similar versions) by Robert
Haas. Heikki Linnakangas and Michael Paquier implemented earlier
designs that materially clarified the problem. Reviewed, in earlier
designs, by Andrew Dunstan, Andres Freund, Alvaro Herrera, Tom Lane,
Fujii Masao, and Simon Riggs. Reported by Martijn van Oosterhout.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20150702220524.GA9392@svana.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Introduced by 61d7c7b.
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Such indexes can only be duplicated leftovers of a previously failed
REINDEX CONCURRENTLY command, and a valid equivalent is guaranteed to
exist. As toast indexes can only be dropped if invalid, reindexing
these would lead to useless duplicated indexes that can't be dropped
anymore, except if the parent relation is dropped.
Thanks to Justin Pryzby for reminding that this problem was reported
long ago during the review of the original patch of REINDEX
CONCURRENTLY, but the issue was never addressed.
Reported-by: Sergei Kornilov, Justin Pryzby
Author: Julien Rouhaud
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/36712441546604286%40sas1-890ba5c2334a.qloud-c.yandex.net
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200216190835.GA21832@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Attempting to use CREATE INDEX, DROP INDEX or REINDEX with CONCURRENTLY
on a temporary relation with ON COMMIT actions triggered unexpected
errors because those operations use multiple transactions internally to
complete their work. Here is for example one confusing error when using
ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS:
ERROR: index "foo" already contains data
Issues related to temporary relations and concurrent indexing are fixed
in this commit by enforcing the non-concurrent path to be taken for
temporary relations even if using CONCURRENTLY, transparently to the
user. Using a non-concurrent path does not matter in practice as locks
cannot be taken on a temporary relation by a session different than the
one owning the relation, and the non-concurrent operation is more
effective.
The problem exists with REINDEX since v12 with the introduction of
CONCURRENTLY, and with CREATE/DROP INDEX since CONCURRENTLY exists for
those commands. In all supported versions, this caused only confusing
error messages to be generated. Note that with REINDEX, it was also
possible to issue a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY for a temporary relation owned
by a different session, leading to a server crash.
The idea to enforce transparently the non-concurrent code path for
temporary relations comes originally from Andres Freund.
Reported-by: Manuel Rigger
Author: Michael Paquier, Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Álvaro Herrera, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+u7OA6gP7YAeCguyseusYcc=uR8+ypjCcgDDCTzjQ+k6S9ksQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Phases 2 (building the new index) and 3 (validating the new index)
checked for interrupts outside a transaction context, having as
consequence to not release session-level locks taken on the parent
relation and the old and new indexes processed. This could for example
be triggered with statement_timeout and a bad timing, and would issue
confusing error messages when shutting down the session still holding
the locks (note that an assertion failure would be triggered first), on
top of more issues with concurrent sessions trying to take a lock that
would interfere with the SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE locks hold here.
This moves all the interruption checks inside a transaction context.
Note that I have manually tested all interruptions to make sure that
invalid indexes can be cleaned up properly. Partition indexes still
have issues on their own with some missing dependency handling, which
will be dealt with in a follow-up patch.
Reported-by: Justin Pryzby
Author: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191013025145.GC4475@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In the first transaction run for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, a thinko in the
existing logic caused two session locks to be taken on the old index,
causing the session lock on the newly-created index to be missed. This
made possible concurrent DDL commands (like ALTER INDEX) on the new
index while REINDEX CONCURRENTLY was processing from the point where the
first internal transaction committed.
This issue has been discovered while digging into another bug.
Author: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191021074323.GB1869@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Apparently while this code was being developed,
ReindexRelationConcurrently operated on multiple relations. The version
that was ultimately pushed doesn't, so this comment's use of plural is
inaccurate.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A race condition can make us try to dereference a NULL pointer to the
PGPROC struct of a process that's already finished. That results in
crashes during REINDEX CONCURRENTLY and CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
This was introduced in ab0dfc961b6a, so backpatch to pg12.
Reported by: Justin Pryzby
Reviewed-by: Michaël Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191012004446.GT10470@telsasoft.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I (Álvaro) broke that in commit 6212276e4343 -- forgot to set the
necessary flag. Repair.
Author: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqEaM2tV5awKhP1vSbgjQe_uXVU15Oi4sTgwgempwMiT8g@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The progress state was being clobbered once the first index completed
being rebuilt, causing the final phases of the operation not show
anything in the progress view. This was inadvertently broken in
03f9e5cba0ee, which added progress tracking for REINDEX.
(The reason this bugfix is this small is that I had already noticed this
problem when writing monitoring for CREATE INDEX, and had already worked
around it, as can be seen in discussion starting at
https://postgr.es/m/20190329150218.GA25010@alvherre.pgsql Fixing the
problem is just a matter of fixing one place touched by the REINDEX
monitoring.)
Reported by: Álvaro Herrera
Author: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190801184333.GA21369@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When copying the definition of an index rebuilt concurrently for the new
entry, the index information was taken directly from the old index using
the relation cache. In this case, predicates and expressions have
some post-processing to prepare things for the planner, which loses some
information including the collations added in any of them.
This inconsistency can cause issues when attempting for example a table
rewrite, and makes the new indexes rebuilt concurrently inconsistent
with the old entries.
In order to fix the problem, fetch expressions and predicates directly
from the catalog of the old entry, and fill in IndexInfo for the new
index with that. This makes the process more consistent with
DefineIndex(), and the code is refactored with the addition of a routine
to create an IndexInfo node.
Reported-by: Manuel Rigger
Author: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+u7OA5Hp0ra235F3czPom_FyAd-3+XwSJmX95r1+sRPOJc9VQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
pgperltidy and reformat-dat-files too, though the latter didn't
find anything to change.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Evidenced by failure under RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE (buildfarm member
prion).
Author: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqGV=k_Eh4jBiQw66ivvdG+EUkrEYeHTYL1SvDj_YOYV0g@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When a partitioned tables contains foreign tables as partitions, it is
not possible to implement unique or primary key indexes -- but when
regular indexes are created, there is no reason to do anything other
than ignoring such partitions. We were raising errors upon encountering
the foreign partitions, which is unfriendly and doesn't protect against
any actual problems.
Relax this restriction so that index creation is allowed on partitioned
tables containing foreign partitions, becoming a no-op on them. (We may
later want to redefine this so that the FDW is told to create the
indexes on the foreign side.) This applies to CREATE INDEX, as well as
ALTER TABLE / ATTACH PARTITION and CREATE TABLE / PARTITION OF.
Backpatch to 11, where indexes on partitioned tables were introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15724-d5a58fa9472eef4f@postgresql.org
Author: Álvaro Herrera
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This makes the whole user experience more consistent when bumping into
failures, and more in line with the rewording done via 508300e.
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190514153252.GA22168@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When performing REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY, if all of the table's indexes
could not be reindexed, a NOTICE message claimed that the table had no
indexes. This was confusing, so let's change the NOTICE text to something
less confusing.
In passing, also mention in the comment before ReindexRelationConcurrently
that materialized views are supported too and also explain what the return
value of the function means.
Author: Ashwin Agrawal
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALfoeithHvi13p_VyR8kt9o6Pa7Z=Smi6Nfc2anHnQx5Lj8bTQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This allows determining which command is running, similar to
pg_stat_progress_cluster.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/f0e56b3b-74b7-6cbc-e207-a5ed6bee18dc%402ndquadrant.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Switch to 2.1 version of pg_bsd_indent. This formats
multiline function declarations "correctly", that is with
additional lines of parameter declarations indented to match
where the first line's left parenthesis is.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0P3FeTXRcU5B2W3jv3PgRVZ-kGUXLGfd42FFhUROO3ug@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is still using the 2.0 version of pg_bsd_indent.
I thought it would be good to commit this separately,
so as to document the differences between 2.0 and 2.1 behavior.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16296.1558103386@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This improves the user experience when it comes to restrict several
flavors of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY. First, for INDEX, remove a restriction
on shared relations as we already check after catalog relations. Then,
for TABLE, add a proper error message when attempting to run the command
on system catalogs. The code path of CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY already
complains about that, but if a REINDEX is issued then then the error
generated is confusing.
While on it, add more tests to check restrictions on catalog indexes and
on toast table/index for catalogs. Some error messages are improved,
with wording suggestion coming from Tom Lane.
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/23694.1556806002@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The right way for IsCatalogRelation/Class to behave is to return true
for OIDs less than FirstBootstrapObjectId (not FirstNormalObjectId),
without any of the ad-hoc fooling around with schema membership.
The previous code was wrong because (1) it claimed that
information_schema tables were not catalog relations but their toast
tables were, which is silly; and (2) if you dropped and recreated
information_schema, which is a supported operation, the behavior
changed. That's even sillier. With this definition, "catalog
relations" are exactly the ones traceable to the postgres.bki data,
which seems like what we want.
With this simplification, we don't actually need access to the pg_class
tuple to identify a catalog relation; we only need its OID. Hence,
replace IsCatalogClass with "IsCatalogRelationOid(oid)". But keep
IsCatalogRelation as a convenience function.
This allows fixing some arguably-wrong semantics in contrib/sepgsql and
ReindexRelationConcurrently, which were using an IsSystemNamespace test
where what they really should be using is IsCatalogRelationOid. The
previous coding failed to protect toast tables of system catalogs, and
also was not on board with the general principle that user-created tables
do not become catalogs just by virtue of being renamed into pg_catalog.
We can also get rid of a messy hack in ReindexMultipleTables.
While we're at it, also rename IsSystemNamespace to IsCatalogNamespace,
because the previous name invited confusion with the more expansive
semantics used by IsSystemRelation/Class.
Also improve the comments in catalog.c.
There are a few remaining places in replication-related code that are
special-casing OIDs below FirstNormalObjectId. I'm inclined to think
those are wrong too, and if there should be any special case it should
just extend to FirstBootstrapObjectId. But first we need to debate
whether a FOR ALL TABLES publication should include information_schema.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/21697.1557092753@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15150.1557257111@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
REINDEX CONCURRENTLY locks tables with ShareUpdateExclusiveLock rather
than the ShareLock used by a plain REINDEX. However,
RangeVarCallbackForReindexIndex() was not updated for that and still
used the ShareLock only. This would lead to lock upgrades later,
leading to possible deadlocks.
Reported-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20190430151735.wi52sxjvxsjvaxxt%40alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Project style is to check the success of SearchSysCacheN and friends
by applying HeapTupleIsValid to the result. A tiny minority of calls
creatively did it differently. Bring them into line with the rest.
This is just cosmetic, since HeapTupleIsValid is indeed just a null
check at the moment ... but that may not be true forever, and in any
case it puts a mental burden on readers who may wonder why these
call sites are not like the rest.
Back-patch to v11 just to keep the branches in sync. (The bulk of these
errors seem to have originated in v11 or v12, though a few are old.)
Per searching to see if anyplace else had made the same error
repaired in 62148c352.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Omitted in commit 05b38c7e6 (though it looks like the original blame
belongs to 9e9befac4). A failure is admittedly unlikely, but if it
did happen, SIGSEGV is not the approved method of reporting it.
Per Coverity. Back-patch to v11 where the broken code originated.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix DefineIndex so that it doesn't attempt to pass down a to-be-reused
index relfilenode to a child index creation, and fix TryReuseIndex
to not think that reuse is sensible for a partitioned index.
In v11, this fixes a problem where ALTER TABLE on a partitioned table
could assign the same relfilenode to several different child indexes,
causing very nasty catalog corruption --- in fact, attempting to DROP
the partitioned table then leads not only to a database crash, but to
inability to restart because the same crash will recur during WAL replay.
Either of these two changes would be enough to prevent the failure, but
since neither action could possibly be sane, let's put in both changes
for future-proofing.
In HEAD, no such bug manifests, but that's just an accidental consequence
of having changed the pg_class representation of partitioned indexes to
have relfilenode = 0. Both of these changes still seem like smart
future-proofing.
This is only a stop-gap because the code for ALTER TABLE on a partitioned
table with a no-op type change still leaves a great deal to be desired.
As the added regression tests show, it gets things wrong for comments on
child indexes/constraints, and it is regenerating child indexes it doesn't
have to. However, fixing those problems will take more work which may not
get back-patched into v11. We need a fix for the corruption problem now.
Per bug #15672 from Jianing Yang.
Patch by me, regression test cases based on work by Amit Langote,
who also did a lot of the investigative work.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15672-b9fa7db32698269f@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When an existing index in a partition is attached to a new index on
its parent, we forgot to set the "relispartition" flag correctly, which
meant that it was not possible to find the index in various operations,
such as adding a foreign key constraint that references that partitioned
table. One of four places that was assigning the parent index was
forgetting to do that, so fix by shifting responsibility of updating the
flag to the routine that changes the parent.
Author: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera
Reported-by: Hubert "depesz" Lubaczewski
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqHMsRtRYRWYTWavKJ8x14AFsv7bmAV46mYwnfD3vy8goQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit ca4103025dfe left a few loose ends. The most important one
(broken pg_dump output) is already fixed by virtue of commit
3b23552ad8bb, but some things remained:
* When ALTER TABLE rewrites tables, the indexes must remain in the
tablespace they were originally in. This didn't work because
index recreation during ALTER TABLE runs manufactured SQL (yuck),
which runs afoul of default_tablespace in competition with the parent
relation tablespace. To fix, reset default_tablespace to the empty
string temporarily, and add the TABLESPACE clause as appropriate.
* Setting a partitioned rel's tablespace to the database default is
confusing; if it worked, it would direct the partitions to that
tablespace regardless of default_tablespace. But in reality it does
not work, and making it work is a larger project. Therefore, throw
an error when this condition is detected, to alert the unwary.
Add some docs and tests, too.
Author: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f_1c260nOt_vBJ067AZ3JXptXVRohDVMLEBmudX1YEx-A@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Per discussion with others, allowing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY to work
for invalid indexes when working directly on them can have a lot of
value to unlock situations with invalid indexes without having to use a
dance involving DROP INDEX followed by an extra CREATE INDEX
CONCURRENTLY (which would not work for indexes with constraint
dependency anyway). This also does not create extra bloat on the
relation involved as this works on individual indexes, so let's enable
it.
Note that REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY still bypasses invalid indexes as
we don't want to bloat the number of indexes defined on a relation in
the event of multiple and successive failures of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY.
More regression tests are added to cover those behaviors, using an
invalid index created with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
Reported-by: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker, Álvaro Herrera
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190411134947.GA22043@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This uses the same infrastructure that the CREATE INDEX progress
reporting uses. Add a column to pg_stat_progress_create_index to
report the OID of the index being worked on. This was not necessary
for CREATE INDEX, but it's useful for REINDEX.
Also edit the phase descriptions a bit to be more consistent with the
source code comments.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ef6a6757-c36a-9e81-123f-13b19e36b7d7%402ndquadrant.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This uses the progress reporting infrastructure added by c16dc1aca5e0,
adding support for CREATE INDEX and CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
There are two pieces to this: one is index-AM-agnostic, and the other is
AM-specific. The latter is fairly elaborate for btrees, including
reportage for parallel index builds and the separate phases that btree
index creation uses; other index AMs, which are much simpler in their
building procedures, have simplistic reporting only, but that seems
sufficient, at least for non-concurrent builds.
The index-AM-agnostic part is fairly complete, providing insight into
the CONCURRENTLY wait phases as well as block-based progress during the
index validation table scan. (The index validation index scan requires
patching each AM, which has not been included here.)
Reviewers: Rahila Syed, Pavan Deolasee, Tatsuro Yamada
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181220220022.mg63bhk26zdpvmcj@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
| |
This was left over from an earlier code structure.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The previous code was adding pointers to transient variables to a
list, but by the time the list was read, the variable might be gone,
depending on the compiler. Fix it by making copies in the proper
memory context.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This adds the CONCURRENTLY option to the REINDEX command. A REINDEX
CONCURRENTLY on a specific index creates a new index (like CREATE
INDEX CONCURRENTLY), then renames the old index away and the new index
in place and adjusts the dependencies, and then drops the old
index (like DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY). The REINDEX command also has
the capability to run its other variants (TABLE, DATABASE) with the
CONCURRENTLY option (but not SYSTEM).
The reindexdb command gets the --concurrently option.
Author: Michael Paquier, Andreas Karlsson, Peter Eisentraut
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Fujii Masao, Jim Nasby, Sergei Kornilov
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/60052986-956b-4478-45ed-8bd119e9b9cf%402ndquadrant.com#74948a1044c56c5e817a5050f554ddee
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
ALTER INDEX .. ATTACH PARTITION fails if the partitioned table where the
index is defined contains more dropped columns than its partition, with
this message:
ERROR: incorrect attribute map
The cause was that one caller of CompareIndexInfo was passing the number
of attributes of the partition rather than the parent, which confused
the length check. Repair.
This can cause pg_upgrade to fail when used on such a database. Leave
some more objects around after regression tests, so that the case is
detected by pg_upgrade test suite.
Remove some spurious empty lines noticed while looking for other cases
of the same problem.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190326213924.GA2322@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When creating a name for a foreign key constraint when none is
specified, use all column names instead of only the first one, similar
to how it is already done for index names.
Author: Paul Martinez <hellopfm@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAF+2_SFjky6XRfLNRXpkG97W6PRbOO_mjAxqXzAAimU=c7w7_A@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Too allow table accesses to be not directly dependent on heap, several
new abstractions are needed. Specifically:
1) Heap scans need to be generalized into table scans. Do this by
introducing TableScanDesc, which will be the "base class" for
individual AMs. This contains the AM independent fields from
HeapScanDesc.
The previous heap_{beginscan,rescan,endscan} et al. have been
replaced with a table_ version.
There's no direct replacement for heap_getnext(), as that returned
a HeapTuple, which is undesirable for a other AMs. Instead there's
table_scan_getnextslot(). But note that heap_getnext() lives on,
it's still used widely to access catalog tables.
This is achieved by new scan_begin, scan_end, scan_rescan,
scan_getnextslot callbacks.
2) The portion of parallel scans that's shared between backends need
to be able to do so without the user doing per-AM work. To achieve
that new parallelscan_{estimate, initialize, reinitialize}
callbacks are introduced, which operate on a new
ParallelTableScanDesc, which again can be subclassed by AMs.
As it is likely that several AMs are going to be block oriented,
block oriented callbacks that can be shared between such AMs are
provided and used by heap. table_block_parallelscan_{estimate,
intiialize, reinitialize} as callbacks, and
table_block_parallelscan_{nextpage, init} for use in AMs. These
operate on a ParallelBlockTableScanDesc.
3) Index scans need to be able to access tables to return a tuple, and
there needs to be state across individual accesses to the heap to
store state like buffers. That's now handled by introducing a
sort-of-scan IndexFetchTable, which again is intended to be
subclassed by individual AMs (for heap IndexFetchHeap).
The relevant callbacks for an AM are index_fetch_{end, begin,
reset} to create the necessary state, and index_fetch_tuple to
retrieve an indexed tuple. Note that index_fetch_tuple
implementations need to be smarter than just blindly fetching the
tuples for AMs that have optimizations similar to heap's HOT - the
currently alive tuple in the update chain needs to be fetched if
appropriate.
Similar to table_scan_getnextslot(), it's undesirable to continue
to return HeapTuples. Thus index_fetch_heap (might want to rename
that later) now accepts a slot as an argument. Core code doesn't
have a lot of call sites performing index scans without going
through the systable_* API (in contrast to loads of heap_getnext
calls and working directly with HeapTuples).
Index scans now store the result of a search in
IndexScanDesc->xs_heaptid, rather than xs_ctup->t_self. As the
target is not generally a HeapTuple anymore that seems cleaner.
To be able to sensible adapt code to use the above, two further
callbacks have been introduced:
a) slot_callbacks returns a TupleTableSlotOps* suitable for creating
slots capable of holding a tuple of the AMs
type. table_slot_callbacks() and table_slot_create() are based
upon that, but have additional logic to deal with views, foreign
tables, etc.
While this change could have been done separately, nearly all the
call sites that needed to be adapted for the rest of this commit
also would have been needed to be adapted for
table_slot_callbacks(), making separation not worthwhile.
b) tuple_satisfies_snapshot checks whether the tuple in a slot is
currently visible according to a snapshot. That's required as a few
places now don't have a buffer + HeapTuple around, but a
slot (which in heap's case internally has that information).
Additionally a few infrastructure changes were needed:
I) SysScanDesc, as used by systable_{beginscan, getnext} et al. now
internally uses a slot to keep track of tuples. While
systable_getnext() still returns HeapTuples, and will so for the
foreseeable future, the index API (see 1) above) now only deals with
slots.
The remainder, and largest part, of this commit is then adjusting all
scans in postgres to use the new APIs.
Author: Andres Freund, Haribabu Kommi, Alvaro Herrera
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/20180703070645.wchpu5muyto5n647@alap3.anarazel.de
https://postgr.es/m/20160812231527.GA690404@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is similar in spirit to the existing partbounds.c file in the
same directory, except that there's a lot less code in the new file
created by this commit. Pending work in this area proposes to add a
bunch more code related to PartitionDescs, though, and this will give
us a good place to put it.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZUwPf_uanjF==gTGBMJrn8uCq52XYvAEorNkLrUdoawg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The original setup for dependencies of partitioned objects had
serious problems:
1. It did not verify that a drop cascading to a partition-child object
also cascaded to at least one of the object's partition parents. Now,
normally a child object would share all its dependencies with one or
another parent (e.g. a child index's opclass dependencies would be shared
with the parent index), so that this oversight is usually harmless.
But if some dependency failed to fit this pattern, the child could be
dropped while all its parents remain, creating a logically broken
situation. (It's easy to construct artificial cases that break it,
such as attaching an unrelated extension dependency to the child object
and then dropping the extension. I'm not sure if any less-artificial
cases exist.)
2. Management of partition dependencies during ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION
was complicated and buggy; for example, after detaching a partition
table it was possible to create cases where a formerly-child index
should be dropped and was not, because the correct set of dependencies
had not been reconstructed.
Less seriously, because multiple partition relationships were
represented identically in pg_depend, there was an order-of-traversal
dependency on which partition parent was cited in error messages.
We also had some pre-existing order-of-traversal hazards for error
messages related to internal and extension dependencies. This is
cosmetic to users but causes testing problems.
To fix #1, add a check at the end of the partition tree traversal
to ensure that at least one partition parent got deleted. To fix #2,
establish a new policy that partition dependencies are in addition to,
not instead of, a child object's usual dependencies; in this way
ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION need not cope with adding or removing the
usual dependencies.
To fix the cosmetic problem, distinguish between primary and secondary
partition dependency entries in pg_depend, by giving them different
deptypes. (They behave identically except for having different
priorities for being cited in error messages.) This means that the
former 'I' dependency type is replaced with new 'P' and 'S' types.
This also fixes a longstanding bug that after handling an internal
dependency by recursing to the owning object, findDependentObjects
did not verify that the current target was now scheduled for deletion,
and did not apply the current recursion level's objflags to it.
Perhaps that should be back-patched; but in the back branches it
would only matter if some concurrent transaction had removed the
internal-linkage pg_depend entry before the recursive call found it,
or the recursive call somehow failed to find it, both of which seem
unlikely.
Catversion bump because the contents of pg_depend change for
partitioning relationships.
Patch HEAD only. It's annoying that we're not fixing #2 in v11,
but there seems no practical way to do so given that the problem
is exactly a poor choice of what entries to put in pg_depend.
We can't really fix that while staying compatible with what's
in pg_depend in existing v11 installations.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wzkypv1R+teZrr71U23J578NnTBt2X8+Y=Odr4pOdW1rXg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Create a new header optimizer/optimizer.h, which exposes just the
planner functions that can be used "at arm's length", without need
to access Paths or the other planner-internal data structures defined
in nodes/relation.h. This is intended to provide the whole planner
API seen by most of the rest of the system; although FDWs still need
to use additional stuff, and more thought is also needed about just
what selfuncs.c should rely on.
The main point of doing this now is to limit the amount of new
#include baggage that will be needed by "planner support functions",
which I expect to introduce later, and which will be in relevant
datatype modules rather than anywhere near the planner.
This commit just moves relevant declarations into optimizer.h from
other header files (a couple of which go away because everything
got moved), and adjusts #include lists to match. There's further
cleanup that could be done if we want to decide that some stuff
being exposed by optimizer.h doesn't belong in the planner at all,
but I'll leave that for another day.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11460.1548706639@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The flag was introduced in 3fdeb18, but f66e8bf actually forgot to
finish the cleanup as index_update_stats() has simplified its
interface.
Author: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190122080852.GB3873@paquier.xyz
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Most of these had been obsoleted by 568d4138c / the SnapshotNow
removal.
This is is preparation for moving most of tqual.[ch] into either
snapmgr.h or heapam.h, which in turn is in preparation for pluggable
table AMs.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180703070645.wchpu5muyto5n647@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190111000539.xbv7s6w7ilcvm7dp@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
heapam.h previously was included in a number of widely used
headers (e.g. execnodes.h, indirectly in executor.h, ...). That's
problematic on its own, as heapam.h contains a lot of low-level
details that don't need to be exposed that widely, but becomes more
problematic with the upcoming introduction of pluggable table storage
- it seems inappropriate for heapam.h to be included that widely
afterwards.
heapam.h was largely only included in other headers to get the
HeapScanDesc typedef (which was defined in heapam.h, even though
HeapScanDescData is defined in relscan.h). The better solution here
seems to be to just use the underlying struct (forward declared where
necessary). Similar for BulkInsertState.
Another problem was that LockTupleMode was used in executor.h - parts
of the file tried to cope without heapam.h, but due to the fact that
it indirectly included it, several subsequent violations of that goal
were not not noticed. We could just reuse the approach of declaring
parameters as int, but it seems nicer to move LockTupleMode to
lockoptions.h - that's not a perfect location, but also doesn't seem
bad.
As a number of files relied on implicitly included heapam.h, a
significant number of files grew an explicit include. It's quite
probably that a few external projects will need to do the same.
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Alvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190114000701.y4ttcb74jpskkcfb@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We were considering the INCLUDE columns as part of the key, allowing
unicity-violating rows to be inserted in different partitions.
Concurrent development conflict in eb7ed3f30634 and 8224de4f42cc.
Reported-by: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190109065109.GA4285@telsasoft.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
|
