| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
"Result Cache" was never a great name for this node, but nobody managed
to come up with another name that anyone liked enough. That was until
David Johnston mentioned "Node Memoization", which Tom Lane revised to
just "Memoize". People seem to like "Memoize", so let's do the rename.
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210708165145.GG1176@momjian.us
Backpatch-through: 14, where Result Cache was introduced
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, it was pg_stat_activity.queryid to match the
pg_stat_statements queryid column. This is an adjustment to patch
4f0b0966c8. This also adjusts some of the internal function calls to
match. Catversion bumped.
Reported-by: Álvaro Herrera, Julien Rouhaud
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210408032704.GA7498@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit b3ee4c503872f3d0a5d6a7cbde48815f555af15b.
We don't need it in the wake of the preceding commit, which
added an upstream check that the querystring isn't null.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2197698.1617984583@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Ignore parallel workers in pg_stat_statements
Oversight in 4f0b0966c8 which exposed queryid in parallel workers.
Counters are aggregated by the main backend process so parallel workers
would report duplicated activity, and could also report activity for the
wrong entry as they are only aware of the top level queryid.
Fix thinko in pg_stat_get_activity when retrieving the queryid.
Remove unnecessary call to pgstat_report_queryid().
Reported-by: Amit Kapila, Andres Freund, Thomas Munro
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210408051735.lfbdzun5zdlax5gd@alap3.anarazel.de p634GTSOqnDW86Owrn6qDAVosC5dJjXjp7BMfc5Gz1Q@mail.gmail.com
Author: Julien Rouhaud
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It's far from clear that this is the right approach - but a good
portion of the buildfarm has been red for a few hours, on the last day
of the CF. And this fixes at least the obvious crash. So let's go with
that for now.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210407225806.majgznh4lk34hjvu%40alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Use the in-core query id computation for pg_stat_activity,
log_line_prefix, and EXPLAIN VERBOSE.
Similar to other fields in pg_stat_activity, only the queryid from the
top level statements are exposed, and if the backends status isn't
active then the queryid from the last executed statements is displayed.
Add a %Q placeholder to include the queryid in log_line_prefix, which
will also only expose top level statements.
For EXPLAIN VERBOSE, if a query identifier has been computed, either by
enabling compute_query_id or using a third-party module, display it.
Bump catalog version.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210407125726.tkvjdbw76hxnpwfi@nol
Author: Julien Rouhaud
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera, Nitin Jadhav, Zhihong Yu
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Here we add a new executor node type named "Result Cache". The planner
can include this node type in the plan to have the executor cache the
results from the inner side of parameterized nested loop joins. This
allows caching of tuples for sets of parameters so that in the event that
the node sees the same parameter values again, it can just return the
cached tuples instead of rescanning the inner side of the join all over
again. Internally, result cache uses a hash table in order to quickly
find tuples that have been previously cached.
For certain data sets, this can significantly improve the performance of
joins. The best cases for using this new node type are for join problems
where a large portion of the tuples from the inner side of the join have
no join partner on the outer side of the join. In such cases, hash join
would have to hash values that are never looked up, thus bloating the hash
table and possibly causing it to multi-batch. Merge joins would have to
skip over all of the unmatched rows. If we use a nested loop join with a
result cache, then we only cache tuples that have at least one join
partner on the outer side of the join. The benefits of using a
parameterized nested loop with a result cache increase when there are
fewer distinct values being looked up and the number of lookups of each
value is large. Also, hash probes to lookup the cache can be much faster
than the hash probe in a hash join as it's common that the result cache's
hash table is much smaller than the hash join's due to result cache only
caching useful tuples rather than all tuples from the inner side of the
join. This variation in hash probe performance is more significant when
the hash join's hash table no longer fits into the CPU's L3 cache, but the
result cache's hash table does. The apparent "random" access of hash
buckets with each hash probe can cause a poor L3 cache hit ratio for large
hash tables. Smaller hash tables generally perform better.
The hash table used for the cache limits itself to not exceeding work_mem
* hash_mem_multiplier in size. We maintain a dlist of keys for this cache
and when we're adding new tuples and realize we've exceeded the memory
budget, we evict cache entries starting with the least recently used ones
until we have enough memory to add the new tuples to the cache.
For parameterized nested loop joins, we now consider using one of these
result cache nodes in between the nested loop node and its inner node. We
determine when this might be useful based on cost, which is primarily
driven off of what the expected cache hit ratio will be. Estimating the
cache hit ratio relies on having good distinct estimates on the nested
loop's parameters.
For now, the planner will only consider using a result cache for
parameterized nested loop joins. This works for both normal joins and
also for LATERAL type joins to subqueries. It is possible to use this new
node for other uses in the future. For example, to cache results from
correlated subqueries. However, that's not done here due to some
difficulties obtaining a distinct estimation on the outer plan to
calculate the estimated cache hit ratio. Currently we plan the inner plan
before planning the outer plan so there is no good way to know if a result
cache would be useful or not since we can't estimate the number of times
the subplan will be called until the outer plan is generated.
The functionality being added here is newly introducing a dependency on
the return value of estimate_num_groups() during the join search.
Previously, during the join search, we only ever needed to perform
selectivity estimations. With this commit, we need to use
estimate_num_groups() in order to estimate what the hit ratio on the
result cache will be. In simple terms, if we expect 10 distinct values
and we expect 1000 outer rows, then we'll estimate the hit ratio to be
99%. Since cache hits are very cheap compared to scanning the underlying
nodes on the inner side of the nested loop join, then this will
significantly reduce the planner's cost for the join. However, it's
fairly easy to see here that things will go bad when estimate_num_groups()
incorrectly returns a value that's significantly lower than the actual
number of distinct values. If this happens then that may cause us to make
use of a nested loop join with a result cache instead of some other join
type, such as a merge or hash join. Our distinct estimations have been
known to be a source of trouble in the past, so the extra reliance on them
here could cause the planner to choose slower plans than it did previous
to having this feature. Distinct estimations are also fairly hard to
estimate accurately when several tables have been joined already or when a
WHERE clause filters out a set of values that are correlated to the
expressions we're estimating the number of distinct value for.
For now, the costing we perform during query planning for result caches
does put quite a bit of faith in the distinct estimations being accurate.
When these are accurate then we should generally see faster execution
times for plans containing a result cache. However, in the real world, we
may find that we need to either change the costings to put less trust in
the distinct estimations being accurate or perhaps even disable this
feature by default. There's always an element of risk when we teach the
query planner to do new tricks that it decides to use that new trick at
the wrong time and causes a regression. Users may opt to get the old
behavior by turning the feature off using the enable_resultcache GUC.
Currently, this is enabled by default. It remains to be seen if we'll
maintain that setting for the release.
Additionally, the name "Result Cache" is the best name I could think of
for this new node at the time I started writing the patch. Nobody seems
to strongly dislike the name. A few people did suggest other names but no
other name seemed to dominate in the brief discussion that there was about
names. Let's allow the beta period to see if the current name pleases
enough people. If there's some consensus on a better name, then we can
change it before the release. Please see the 2nd discussion link below
for the discussion on the "Result Cache" name.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Andy Fan, Justin Pryzby, Zhihong Yu, Hou Zhijie
Tested-By: Konstantin Knizhnik
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrPcQyQdWERGYWx8J%2B2DLUNgXu%2BfOSbQ1UscxrunyXyrQ%40mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvq=yQXr5kqhRviT2RhNKwToaWr9JAN5t+5_PzhuRJ3wvg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This removes "Add Result Cache executor node". It seems that something
weird is going on with the tracking of cache hits and misses as
highlighted by many buildfarm animals. It's not yet clear what the
problem is as other parts of the plan indicate that the cache did work
correctly, it's just the hits and misses that were being reported as 0.
This is especially a bad time to have the buildfarm so broken, so
reverting before too many more animals go red.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvq_hydhfovm4=izgWs+C5HqEeRScjMbOgbpC-jRAeK3Yw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Here we add a new executor node type named "Result Cache". The planner
can include this node type in the plan to have the executor cache the
results from the inner side of parameterized nested loop joins. This
allows caching of tuples for sets of parameters so that in the event that
the node sees the same parameter values again, it can just return the
cached tuples instead of rescanning the inner side of the join all over
again. Internally, result cache uses a hash table in order to quickly
find tuples that have been previously cached.
For certain data sets, this can significantly improve the performance of
joins. The best cases for using this new node type are for join problems
where a large portion of the tuples from the inner side of the join have
no join partner on the outer side of the join. In such cases, hash join
would have to hash values that are never looked up, thus bloating the hash
table and possibly causing it to multi-batch. Merge joins would have to
skip over all of the unmatched rows. If we use a nested loop join with a
result cache, then we only cache tuples that have at least one join
partner on the outer side of the join. The benefits of using a
parameterized nested loop with a result cache increase when there are
fewer distinct values being looked up and the number of lookups of each
value is large. Also, hash probes to lookup the cache can be much faster
than the hash probe in a hash join as it's common that the result cache's
hash table is much smaller than the hash join's due to result cache only
caching useful tuples rather than all tuples from the inner side of the
join. This variation in hash probe performance is more significant when
the hash join's hash table no longer fits into the CPU's L3 cache, but the
result cache's hash table does. The apparent "random" access of hash
buckets with each hash probe can cause a poor L3 cache hit ratio for large
hash tables. Smaller hash tables generally perform better.
The hash table used for the cache limits itself to not exceeding work_mem
* hash_mem_multiplier in size. We maintain a dlist of keys for this cache
and when we're adding new tuples and realize we've exceeded the memory
budget, we evict cache entries starting with the least recently used ones
until we have enough memory to add the new tuples to the cache.
For parameterized nested loop joins, we now consider using one of these
result cache nodes in between the nested loop node and its inner node. We
determine when this might be useful based on cost, which is primarily
driven off of what the expected cache hit ratio will be. Estimating the
cache hit ratio relies on having good distinct estimates on the nested
loop's parameters.
For now, the planner will only consider using a result cache for
parameterized nested loop joins. This works for both normal joins and
also for LATERAL type joins to subqueries. It is possible to use this new
node for other uses in the future. For example, to cache results from
correlated subqueries. However, that's not done here due to some
difficulties obtaining a distinct estimation on the outer plan to
calculate the estimated cache hit ratio. Currently we plan the inner plan
before planning the outer plan so there is no good way to know if a result
cache would be useful or not since we can't estimate the number of times
the subplan will be called until the outer plan is generated.
The functionality being added here is newly introducing a dependency on
the return value of estimate_num_groups() during the join search.
Previously, during the join search, we only ever needed to perform
selectivity estimations. With this commit, we need to use
estimate_num_groups() in order to estimate what the hit ratio on the
result cache will be. In simple terms, if we expect 10 distinct values
and we expect 1000 outer rows, then we'll estimate the hit ratio to be
99%. Since cache hits are very cheap compared to scanning the underlying
nodes on the inner side of the nested loop join, then this will
significantly reduce the planner's cost for the join. However, it's
fairly easy to see here that things will go bad when estimate_num_groups()
incorrectly returns a value that's significantly lower than the actual
number of distinct values. If this happens then that may cause us to make
use of a nested loop join with a result cache instead of some other join
type, such as a merge or hash join. Our distinct estimations have been
known to be a source of trouble in the past, so the extra reliance on them
here could cause the planner to choose slower plans than it did previous
to having this feature. Distinct estimations are also fairly hard to
estimate accurately when several tables have been joined already or when a
WHERE clause filters out a set of values that are correlated to the
expressions we're estimating the number of distinct value for.
For now, the costing we perform during query planning for result caches
does put quite a bit of faith in the distinct estimations being accurate.
When these are accurate then we should generally see faster execution
times for plans containing a result cache. However, in the real world, we
may find that we need to either change the costings to put less trust in
the distinct estimations being accurate or perhaps even disable this
feature by default. There's always an element of risk when we teach the
query planner to do new tricks that it decides to use that new trick at
the wrong time and causes a regression. Users may opt to get the old
behavior by turning the feature off using the enable_resultcache GUC.
Currently, this is enabled by default. It remains to be seen if we'll
maintain that setting for the release.
Additionally, the name "Result Cache" is the best name I could think of
for this new node at the time I started writing the patch. Nobody seems
to strongly dislike the name. A few people did suggest other names but no
other name seemed to dominate in the brief discussion that there was about
names. Let's allow the beta period to see if the current name pleases
enough people. If there's some consensus on a better name, then we can
change it before the release. Please see the 2nd discussion link below
for the discussion on the "Result Cache" name.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Andy Fan, Justin Pryzby, Zhihong Yu
Tested-By: Konstantin Knizhnik
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrPcQyQdWERGYWx8J%2B2DLUNgXu%2BfOSbQ1UscxrunyXyrQ%40mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvq=yQXr5kqhRviT2RhNKwToaWr9JAN5t+5_PzhuRJ3wvg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead of allocating all the ResultRelInfos upfront in one big array,
allocate them in ExecInitModifyTable(). es_result_relations is now an
array of ResultRelInfo pointers, rather than an array of structs, and it
is indexed by the RT index.
This simplifies things: we get rid of the separate concept of a "result
rel index", and don't need to set it in setrefs.c anymore. This also
allows follow-up optimizations (not included in this commit yet) to skip
initializing ResultRelInfos for target relations that were not needed at
runtime, and removal of the es_result_relation_info pointer.
The EState arrays of regular result rels and root result rels are merged
into one array. Similarly, the resultRelations and rootResultRelations
lists in PlannedStmt are merged into one. It's not actually clear to me
why they were kept separate in the first place, but now that the
es_result_relations array is indexed by RT index, it certainly seems
pointless.
The PlannedStmt->resultRelations list is now only needed for
ExecRelationIsTargetRelation(). One visible effect of this change is that
ExecRelationIsTargetRelation() will now return 'true' also for the
partition root, if a partitioned table is updated. That seems like a good
thing, although the function isn't used in core code, and I don't see any
reason for an FDW to call it on a partition root.
Author: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BHiwqGEmiib8FLiHMhKB%2BCH5dRgHSLc5N5wnvc4kym%2BZYpQEQ%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Since 1f39bce02, HashAgg nodes have had the ability to spill to disk when
memory consumption exceeds work_mem. That commit added new properties to
EXPLAIN ANALYZE to show the maximum memory usage and disk usage, however,
it didn't quite go as far as showing that information for parallel
workers. Since workers may have experienced something very different from
the main process, we should show this information per worker, as is done
in Sort.
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby
Reviewed-by: Jeff Davis
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvpEKbfZa18mM1TD7qV6PG+w97pwCWq5tVD0dX7e11gRJw@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 13, where the hashagg spilling code was added.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Incremental Sort is an optimized variant of multikey sort for cases when
the input is already sorted by a prefix of the requested sort keys. For
example when the relation is already sorted by (key1, key2) and we need
to sort it by (key1, key2, key3) we can simply split the input rows into
groups having equal values in (key1, key2), and only sort/compare the
remaining column key3.
This has a number of benefits:
- Reduced memory consumption, because only a single group (determined by
values in the sorted prefix) needs to be kept in memory. This may also
eliminate the need to spill to disk.
- Lower startup cost, because Incremental Sort produce results after each
prefix group, which is beneficial for plans where startup cost matters
(like for example queries with LIMIT clause).
We consider both Sort and Incremental Sort, and decide based on costing.
The implemented algorithm operates in two different modes:
- Fetching a minimum number of tuples without check of equality on the
prefix keys, and sorting on all columns when safe.
- Fetching all tuples for a single prefix group and then sorting by
comparing only the remaining (non-prefix) keys.
We always start in the first mode, and employ a heuristic to switch into
the second mode if we believe it's beneficial - the goal is to minimize
the number of unnecessary comparions while keeping memory consumption
below work_mem.
This is a very old patch series. The idea was originally proposed by
Alexander Korotkov back in 2013, and then revived in 2017. In 2018 the
patch was taken over by James Coleman, who wrote and rewrote most of the
current code.
There were many reviewers/contributors since 2013 - I've done my best to
pick the most active ones, and listed them in this commit message.
Author: James Coleman, Alexander Korotkov
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra, Andreas Karlsson, Marti Raudsepp, Peter Geoghegan, Robert Haas, Thomas Munro, Antonin Houska, Andres Freund, Alexander Kuzmenkov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdscOX5an71nHd8WSUH6GNOCf=V7wgDaTXdDd9=goN-gfA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfds1waRZ=NOmueYq0sx1ZSCnt+5QJvizT8ndT2=etZEeAQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This allows gathering the WAL generation statistics for each statement
execution. The three statistics that we collect are the number of WAL
records, the number of full page writes and the amount of WAL bytes
generated.
This helps the users who have write-intensive workload to see the impact
of I/O due to WAL. This further enables us to see approximately what
percentage of overall WAL is due to full page writes.
In the future, we can extend this functionality to allow us to compute the
the exact amount of WAL data due to full page writes.
This patch in itself is just an infrastructure to compute WAL usage data.
The upcoming patches will expose this data via explain, auto_explain,
pg_stat_statements and verbose (auto)vacuum output.
Author: Kirill Bychik, Julien Rouhaud
Reviewed-by: Dilip Kumar, Fujii Masao and Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAB-hujrP8ZfUkvL5OYETipQwA=e3n7oqHFU=4ZLxWS_Cza3kQQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch causes EXPLAIN to always assign a separate table alias to the
parent RTE of an append relation (inheritance set); before, such RTEs
were ignored if not actually scanned by the plan. Since the child RTEs
now always have that same alias to start with (cf. commit 55a1954da),
the net effect is that the parent RTE usually gets the alias used or
implied by the query text, and the children all get that alias with "_N"
appended. (The exception to "usually" is if there are duplicate aliases
in different subtrees of the original query; then some of those original
RTEs will also have "_N" appended.)
This results in more uniform output for partitioned-table plans than
we had before: the partitioned table itself gets the original alias,
and all child tables have aliases with "_N", rather than the previous
behavior where one of the children would get an alias without "_N".
The reason for giving the parent RTE an alias, even if it isn't scanned
by the plan, is that we now use the parent's alias to qualify Vars that
refer to an appendrel output column and appear above the Append or
MergeAppend that computes the appendrel. But below the append, Vars
refer to some one of the child relations, and are displayed that way.
This seems clearer than the old behavior where a Var that could carry
values from any child relation was displayed as if it referred to only
one of them.
While at it, change ruleutils.c so that the code paths used by EXPLAIN
deal in Plan trees not PlanState trees. This effectively reverts a
decision made in commit 1cc29fe7c, which seemed like a good idea at
the time to make ruleutils.c consistent with explain.c. However,
it's problematic because we'd really like to allow executor startup
pruning to remove all the children of an append node when possible,
leaving no child PlanState to resolve Vars against. (That's not done
here, but will be in the next patch.) This requires different handling
of subplans and initplans than before, but is otherwise a pretty
straightforward change.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/001001d4f44b$2a2cca50$7e865ef0$@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Similar to commits 7e735035f2 and dddf4cdc33, this commit makes the order
of header file inclusion consistent for backend modules.
In the passing, removed a couple of duplicate inclusions.
Author: Vignesh C
Reviewed-by: Kuntal Ghosh and Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALDaNm2Sznv8RR6Ex-iJO6xAdsxgWhCoETkaYX=+9DW3q0QCfA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When this code was initially introduced in commit d1b7c1ff, the structure
used was SharedPlanStateInstrumentation, but later when it got changed to
Instrumentation structure in commit b287df70, we forgot to update the
comment.
Reported-by: Wu Fei
Author: Wu Fei
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/52E6E0843B9D774C8C73D6CF64402F0562215EB2@G08CNEXMBPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, the SERIALIZABLE isolation level prevented parallel query
from being used. Allow the two features to be used together by
sharing the leader's SERIALIZABLEXACT with parallel workers.
An extra per-SERIALIZABLEXACT LWLock is introduced to make it safe to
share, and new logic is introduced to coordinate the early release
of the SERIALIZABLEXACT required for the SXACT_FLAG_RO_SAFE
optimization, as follows:
The first backend to observe the SXACT_FLAG_RO_SAFE flag (set by
some other transaction) will 'partially release' the SERIALIZABLEXACT,
meaning that the conflicts and locks it holds are released, but the
SERIALIZABLEXACT itself will remain active because other backends
might still have a pointer to it.
Whenever any backend notices the SXACT_FLAG_RO_SAFE flag, it clears
its own MySerializableXact variable and frees local resources so that
it can skip SSI checks for the rest of the transaction. In the
special case of the leader process, it transfers the SERIALIZABLEXACT
to a new variable SavedSerializableXact, so that it can be completely
released at the end of the transaction after all workers have exited.
Remove the serializable_okay flag added to CreateParallelContext() by
commit 9da0cc35, because it's now redundant.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-by: Haribabu Kommi, Robert Haas, Masahiko Sawada, Kevin Grittner
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0gXGYhtrVDWOTHS8SQQy_=S9xo+8oCxGLWZAOoeJ=yzQ@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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Spotted mostly by Fabien Coelho.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/alpine.DEB.2.21.1901230947050.16643@lancre
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In the wake of commit f2343653f, we no longer need some fields that
were used before to control executor lock acquisitions:
* PlannedStmt.nonleafResultRelations can go away entirely.
* partitioned_rels can go away from Append, MergeAppend, and ModifyTable.
However, ModifyTable still needs to know the RT index of the partition
root table if any, which was formerly kept in the first entry of that
list. Add a new field "rootRelation" to remember that. rootRelation is
partly redundant with nominalRelation, in that if it's set it will have
the same value as nominalRelation. However, the latter field has a
different purpose so it seems best to keep them distinct.
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I (Andres) was more than a bit hasty in committing 33001fd7a7072d48327
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
52050ad8ebec8d831.
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
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
The documented shortcoming was actually fixed in 4c728f3829
so the comment is not true anymore.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In the leader backend, we don't track the buffer usage for ExecutorStart
phase whereas in worker backend we track it for ExecutorStart phase as
well. This leads to different value for buffer usage stats for the
parallel and non-parallel query. Change the code so that worker backend
also starts tracking buffer usage after ExecutorStart.
Author: Amit Kapila and Robert Haas
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas and Andres Freund
Backpatch-through: 9.6 where this code was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/86137f17-1dfb-42f9-7421-82fd786b04a1@anayrat.info
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
To make this work, tuplesort.c and logtape.c must also support
parallelism, so this patch adds that infrastructure and then applies
it to the particular case of parallel btree index builds. Testing
to date shows that this can often be 2-3x faster than a serial
index build.
The model for deciding how many workers to use is fairly primitive
at present, but it's better than not having the feature. We can
refine it as we get more experience.
Peter Geoghegan with some help from Rushabh Lathia. While Heikki
Linnakangas is not an author of this patch, he wrote other patches
without which this feature would not have been possible, and
therefore the release notes should possibly credit him as an author
of this feature. Reviewed by Claudio Freire, Heikki Linnakangas,
Thomas Munro, Tels, Amit Kapila, me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM3SWZQKM=Pzc=CAHzRixKjp2eO5Q0Jg1SoFQqeXFQ647JiwqQ@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=AxWqDoVvGU7dq856S4r6sJAj6DBn7VMtigkB33N5eyg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Introduce parallel-aware hash joins that appear in EXPLAIN plans as Parallel
Hash Join with Parallel Hash. While hash joins could already appear in
parallel queries, they were previously always parallel-oblivious and had a
partial subplan only on the outer side, meaning that the work of the inner
subplan was duplicated in every worker.
After this commit, the planner will consider using a partial subplan on the
inner side too, using the Parallel Hash node to divide the work over the
available CPU cores and combine its results in shared memory. If the join
needs to be split into multiple batches in order to respect work_mem, then
workers process different batches as much as possible and then work together
on the remaining batches.
The advantages of a parallel-aware hash join over a parallel-oblivious hash
join used in a parallel query are that it:
* avoids wasting memory on duplicated hash tables
* avoids wasting disk space on duplicated batch files
* divides the work of building the hash table over the CPUs
One disadvantage is that there is some communication between the participating
CPUs which might outweigh the benefits of parallelism in the case of small
hash tables. This is avoided by the planner's existing reluctance to supply
partial plans for small scans, but it may be necessary to estimate
synchronization costs in future if that situation changes. Another is that
outer batch 0 must be written to disk if multiple batches are required.
A potential future advantage of parallel-aware hash joins is that right and
full outer joins could be supported, since there is a single set of matched
bits for each hashtable, but that is not yet implemented.
A new GUC enable_parallel_hash is defined to control the feature, defaulting
to on.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Robert Haas
Tested-By: Rafia Sabih, Prabhat Sahu
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Otherwise, when the query string is read, we might trailing garbage
beyond the end, unless there happens to be a \0 there by good luck.
Report and patch by Thomas Munro. Reviewed by Rafia Sabih.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2SJs7X+_vx8QoDu8d1SMEOxtLhxxLNzZun_BvNkuNhrw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When a Gather or Gather Merge node is started and stopped multiple
times, accumulate instrumentation data only once, at the end, instead
of after each execution, to avoid recording inflated totals.
Commit 778e78ae9fa51e58f41cbdc72b293291d02d8984, the previous attempt
at a fix, instead reset the state after every execution, which worked
for the general instrumentation data but had problems for the additional
instrumentation specific to Sort and Hash nodes.
Report by hubert depesz lubaczewski. Analysis and fix by Amit Kapila,
following a design proposal from Thomas Munro, with a comment tweak
by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20171127175631.GA405@depesz.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
es_query_dsa turns out to be broken by design, because it supposes
that there is only one DSA for the whole query, whereas there is
actually one per Gather (Merge) node. For now, work around that
problem by setting and clearing the pointer around the sections of
code that might need it. It's probably a better idea to get rid of
es_query_dsa altogether in favor of having each node keep track
individually of which DSA is relevant, but that seems like more than
we would want to back-patch.
Thomas Munro, reviewed and tested by Andreas Seltenreich, Amit
Kapila, and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=1U6as=brnVvMNixEV2tpi8NuyQoTmO8Qef0-VV+=7MDA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 2c09a5c12a66087218c7f8cba269cd3de51b9b82. Per
further discussion, that doesn't seem to be the best possible fix.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1LW2aFKzY3=vwvc=t-juzPPVWP2uT1bpx_MeyEqnM+p8g@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When we create an Append node, we can spread out the workers over the
subplans instead of piling on to each subplan one at a time, which
should typically be a bit more efficient, both because the startup
cost of any plan executed entirely by one worker is paid only once and
also because of reduced contention. We can also construct Append
plans using a mix of partial and non-partial subplans, which may allow
for parallelism in places that otherwise couldn't support it.
Unfortunately, this patch doesn't handle the important case of
parallelizing UNION ALL by running each branch in a separate worker;
the executor infrastructure is added here, but more planner work is
needed.
Amit Khandekar, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, reviewed and tested by
Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Langote, Rafia Sabih, Amit Kapila, and
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9dy0K_E8r727heqXoBmWZ83HwLFwdcaSSmBQ1+S+vRuUQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When a Gather or Gather Merge node is started and stopped multiple
times, the old code wouldn't reset the shared state between executions,
potentially resulting in dramatically inflated instrumentation data
for nodes beneath it. (The per-worker instrumentation ended up OK,
I think, but the overall totals were inflated.)
Report by hubert depesz lubaczewski. Analysis and fix by Amit Kapila,
reviewed and tweaked a bit by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20171127175631.GA405@depesz.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If a hash join appears in a parallel query, there may be no hash table
available for explain.c to inspect even though a hash table may have
been built in other processes. This could happen either because
parallel_leader_participation was set to off or because the leader
happened to hit the end of the outer relation immediately (even though
the complete relation is not empty) and decided not to build the hash
table.
Commit bf11e7ee introduced a way for workers to exchange
instrumentation via the DSM segment for Sort nodes even though they
are not parallel-aware. This commit does the same for Hash nodes, so
that explain.c has a way to find instrumentation data from an
arbitrary participant that actually built the hash table.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D3DUQC2-z252N55eOcZBer6DPdM%3DFzrxH9dZc5vYLsjaA%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently, there are no known consequences of this oversight, so no
back-patch. Several of the EXEC_FLAG_* constants aren't usable in
parallel mode anyway, and potential problems related to the presence
or absence of OIDs (see EXEC_FLAG_WITH_OIDS, EXEC_FLAG_WITHOUT_OIDS)
seem at present to be masked by the unconditional projection step
performed by Gather and Gather Merge. In general, however, it seems
important that all participants agree on the values of these flags,
which modify executor behavior globally, and a pending patch to skip
projection in Gather (Merge) would be outright broken in certain cases
without this fix.
Patch by me, based on investigation of a test case provided by Amit
Kapila. This patch was also reviewed by Amit Kapila.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZ0ZL=cesZFq8c9NnfK6bqy-wwUd3_74iYGodYrSoQ7Fw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, executor nodes running in parallel worker processes didn't
have access to the dsm_segment object used for parallel execution. In
order to support resource management based on DSM segment lifetime,
they need that. So create a ParallelWorkerContext object to hold it
and pass it to all InitializeWorker functions.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If a PARAM_EXEC parameter is used below a Gather (Merge) but the InitPlan
that computes it is attached to or above the Gather (Merge), force the
value to be computed before starting parallelism and pass it down to all
workers. This allows us to use parallelism in cases where it previously
would have had to be rejected as unsafe. We do - in this case - lose the
optimization that the value is only computed if it's actually used. An
alternative strategy would be to have the first worker that needs the value
compute it, but one downside of that approach is that we'd then need to
select a parallel-safe path to compute the parameter value; it couldn't for
example contain a Gather (Merge) node. At some point in the future, we
might want to consider both approaches.
Independent of that consideration, there is a great deal more work that
could be done to make more kinds of PARAM_EXEC parameters parallel-safe.
This infrastructure could be used to allow a Gather (Merge) on the inner
side of a nested loop (although that's not a very appealing plan) and
cases where the InitPlan is attached below the Gather (Merge) could be
addressed as well using various techniques. But this is a good start.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and revised by me. Reviewing and testing from
Kuntal Ghosh, Haribabu Kommi, and Tushar Ahuja.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1LV0Y1AUV4cUCdC+sYOx0Z0-8NAJ2Pd9=UKsbQ5Sr7+JQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This takes advantage of the infrastructure introduced by commit
81c5e46c490e2426db243eada186995da5bb0ba7 to greatly reduce the
likelihood that two different queries will end up with the same query
ID. It's still possible, of course, but whereas before it the chances
of a collision reached 25% around 50,000 queries, it will now take
more than 3 billion queries.
Backward incompatibility: Because the type exposed at the SQL level is
int8, users may now see negative query IDs in the pg_stat_statements
view (and also, query IDs more than 4 billion, which was the old
limit).
Patch by me, reviewed by Michael Paquier and Peter Geoghegan.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobG_Kp4cBKFmsznUAaM1GWW6hhRNiZC0KjRMOOeYnz5Yw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
With the introduction of a shared memory record typmod registry, it is no
longer necessary to remap record typmods when sending tuples between backends
so most of tqueue.c can be removed.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Move the responsibility for creating/destroying TupleQueueReaders into
execParallel.c, to avoid duplicative coding in nodeGather.c and
nodeGatherMerge.c. Also, instead of having DestroyTupleQueueReader do
shm_mq_detach, do it in the caller (which is now only ExecParallelFinish).
This means execParallel.c does both the attaching and detaching of the
tuple-queue-reader shm_mqs, which seems less weird than the previous
arrangement.
These changes also eliminate a vestigial memory leak (of the pei->tqueue
array). It's now demonstrable that rescans of Gather or GatherMerge don't
leak memory.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8670.1504192177@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, the parallel executor logic did reinitialization of shared
state within the ExecReScan code for parallel-aware scan nodes. This is
problematic, because it means that the ExecReScan call has to occur
synchronously (ie, during the parent Gather node's ReScan call). That is
swimming very much against the tide so far as the ExecReScan machinery is
concerned; the fact that it works at all today depends on a lot of fragile
assumptions, such as that no plan node between Gather and a parallel-aware
scan node is parameterized. Another objection is that because ExecReScan
might be called in workers as well as the leader, hacky extra tests are
needed in some places to prevent unwanted shared-state resets.
Hence, let's separate this code into two functions, a ReInitializeDSM
call and the ReScan call proper. ReInitializeDSM is called only in
the leader and is guaranteed to run before we start new workers.
ReScan is returned to its traditional function of resetting only local
state, which means that ExecReScan's usual habits of delaying or
eliminating child rescan calls are safe again.
As with the preceding commit 7df2c1f8d, it doesn't seem to be necessary
to make these changes in 9.6, which is a good thing because the FDW and
CustomScan APIs are impacted.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
|
