aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/backend/executor/nodeIndexonlyscan.c
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAge
* Update copyrights for 2013Bruce Momjian2013-01-01
| | | | | Fully update git head, and update back branches in ./COPYRIGHT and legal.sgml files.
* Fix serializable mode with index-only scans.Kevin Grittner2012-09-04
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Serializable Snapshot Isolation used for serializable transactions depends on acquiring SIRead locks on all heap relation tuples which are used to generate the query result, so that a later delete or update of any of the tuples can flag a read-write conflict between transactions. This is normally handled in heapam.c, with tuple level locking. Since an index-only scan avoids heap access in many cases, building the result from the index tuple, the necessary predicate locks were not being acquired for all tuples in an index-only scan. To prevent problems with tuple IDs which are vacuumed and re-used while the transaction still matters, the xmin of the tuple is part of the tag for the tuple lock. Since xmin is not available to the index-only scan for result rows generated from the index tuples, it is not possible to acquire a tuple-level predicate lock in such cases, in spite of having the tid. If we went to the heap to get the xmin value, it would no longer be an index-only scan. Rather than prohibit index-only scans under serializable transaction isolation, we acquire an SIRead lock on the page containing the tuple, when it was not necessary to visit the heap for other reasons. Backpatch to 9.2. Kevin Grittner and Tom Lane
* Run pgindent on 9.2 source tree in preparation for first 9.3Bruce Momjian2012-06-10
| | | | commit-fest.
* Fix more crash-safe visibility map bugs, and improve comments.Robert Haas2012-06-07
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In lazy_scan_heap, we could issue bogus warnings about incorrect information in the visibility map, because we checked the visibility map bit before locking the heap page, creating a race condition. Fix by rechecking the visibility map bit before we complain. Rejigger some related logic so that we rely on the possibly-outdated all_visible_according_to_vm value as little as possible. In heap_multi_insert, it's not safe to clear the visibility map bit before beginning the critical section. The visibility map is not crash-safe unless we treat clearing the bit as a critical operation. Specifically, if the transaction were to error out after we set the bit and before entering the critical section, we could end up writing the heap page to disk (with the bit cleared) and crashing before the visibility map page made it to disk. That would be bad. heap_insert has this correct, but somehow the order of operations got rearranged when heap_multi_insert was added. Also, add some more comments to visibilitymap_test, lazy_scan_heap, and IndexOnlyNext, expounding on concurrency issues. Per extensive code review by Andres Freund, and further review by Tom Lane, who also made the original report about the bogus warnings.
* Instrument index-only scans to count heap fetches performed.Robert Haas2012-01-25
| | | | Patch by me; review by Tom Lane, Jeff Davis, and Peter Geoghegan.
* Update copyright notices for year 2012.Bruce Momjian2012-01-01
|
* Avoid assuming that index-only scan data matches the index's rowtype.Tom Lane2011-10-16
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In general the data returned by an index-only scan should have the datatypes originally computed by FormIndexDatum. If the index opclasses use "storage" datatypes different from their input datatypes, the scan tuple will not have the same rowtype attributed to the index; but we had a hard-wired assumption that that was true in nodeIndexonlyscan.c. We'd already hacked around the issue for the one case where the types are different in btree indexes (btree name_ops), but this would definitely come back to bite us if we ever implement index-only scans in GiST. To fix, require the index AM to explicitly provide the tupdesc for the tuple it is returning. btree can just pass back the index's tupdesc, but GiST will have to work harder when and if it supports index-only scans. I had previously proposed fixing this by allowing the index AM to fill the scan tuple slot directly; but on reflection that seemed like a module layering violation, since TupleTableSlots are creatures of the executor. At least in the btree case, it would also be less efficient, since the tuple deconstruction work would occur even for rows later found to be invisible to the scan's snapshot.
* Generate index-only scan tuple descriptor from the plan node's indextlist.Tom Lane2011-10-11
| | | | | | | | | | Dept. of second thoughts: as long as we've got that tlist hanging around anyway, we can apply ExecTypeFromTL to it to get a suitable descriptor for the ScanTupleSlot. This is a nicer solution than the previous one because it eliminates some hard-wired knowledge about btree name_ops, and because it avoids the somewhat shaky assumption that we needn't set up the scan tuple descriptor in EXPLAIN_ONLY mode. It doesn't change what actually happens at run-time though, and I'm still a bit nervous about that.
* Rearrange the implementation of index-only scans.Tom Lane2011-10-11
This commit changes index-only scans so that data is read directly from the index tuple without first generating a faux heap tuple. The only immediate benefit is that indexes on system columns (such as OID) can be used in index-only scans, but this is necessary infrastructure if we are ever to support index-only scans on expression indexes. The executor is now ready for that, though the planner still needs substantial work to recognize the possibility. To do this, Vars in index-only plan nodes have to refer to index columns not heap columns. I introduced a new special varno, INDEX_VAR, to mark such Vars to avoid confusion. (In passing, this commit renames the two existing special varnos to OUTER_VAR and INNER_VAR.) This allows ruleutils.c to handle them with logic similar to what we use for subplan reference Vars. Since index-only scans are now fundamentally different from regular indexscans so far as their expression subtrees are concerned, I also chose to change them to have their own plan node type (and hence, their own executor source file).