| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Per buildfarm member akepa and others. Back-patch to v16 and v15.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20240924224352.93.nmisch@google.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The previous commit fixed some ways of losing an inplace update. It
remained possible to lose one when a backend working toward a
heap_update() copied a tuple into memory just before inplace update of
that tuple. In catalogs eligible for inplace update, use LOCKTAG_TUPLE
to govern admission to the steps of copying an old tuple, modifying it,
and issuing heap_update(). This includes MERGE commands. To avoid
changing most of the pg_class DDL, don't require LOCKTAG_TUPLE when
holding a relation lock sufficient to exclude inplace updaters.
Back-patch to v12 (all supported versions). In v13 and v12, "UPDATE
pg_class" or "UPDATE pg_database" can still lose an inplace update. The
v14+ UPDATE fix needs commit 86dc90056dfdbd9d1b891718d2e5614e3e432f35,
and it wasn't worth reimplementing that fix without such infrastructure.
Reviewed by Nitin Motiani and (in earlier versions) Heikki Linnakangas.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20231027214946.79.nmisch@google.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Most comments concern RELKIND_VIEW. One addresses the ExecUpdate()
"tupleid" parameter. A later commit will rely on these facts, but they
hold already. Back-patch to v12 (all supported versions), the plan for
that commit.
Reviewed (in an earlier version) by Robert Haas.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20240512232923.aa.nmisch@google.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When an UPDATE or DELETE action in MERGE returns TM_SelfModified,
there are 2 possible causes:
1). The target tuple was already updated or deleted by the current
command. This can happen if the target row joins to more than one
source row, and the SQL standard explicitly says that this must be
an error.
2). The target tuple was already updated or deleted by a later command
in the current transaction. This can happen if the tuple is
modified by a BEFORE trigger or a volatile function used in the
query, and should be an error for the same reason that it is in a
plain UPDATE or DELETE command.
In MERGE's primary error handling block, it failed to check for (2),
causing it to return a misleading error message in such cases.
In the secondary error handling block, following a concurrent update
from another session, it failed to check for (1), causing it to
silently ignore target rows joined to more than one source row,
instead of reporting an error.
Fix this, and add tests for both of these cases.
Per report from Wenjiang Zhang. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was
introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/tencent_41DE0FF443FE14B94A5898D373792109E408%40qq.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix a bug during MERGE if a cross-partition update is attempted on a
partitioned table with a BEFORE DELETE ROW trigger that returns NULL,
to prevent the update. This would cause an error to be thrown, or an
assert failure in an assert-enabled build.
This was an oversight in 9321c79c86, which failed to properly
distinguish a DELETE prevented by a trigger from one prevented by a
concurrent update. Fix by having ExecDelete() return the TM_Result
status to ExecCrossPartitionUpdate(), so that it can distinguish the
two cases, and make ExecCrossPartitionUpdate() return the TM_Result
status to ExecUpdateAct(), so that it can return the correct status
from a concurrent update.
In addition, ensure that the command tag is correctly updated by
having ExecMergeMatched() pass canSetTag to ExecUpdateAct(), rather
than passing false, so that it updates the command tag if it does a
cross-partition update, making this code path in ExecMergeMatched()
consistent with ExecUpdate().
Per bug #18238 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE
was introduced.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Richard Guo and Jian He.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18238-2f2bdc7f720180b9%40postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When executing a MERGE UPDATE action, if the UPDATE is turned into a
cross-partition DELETE then INSERT, do not attempt to invoke AFTER
UPDATE ROW triggers, or any of the other post-update actions in
ExecUpdateEpilogue().
For consistency with a plain UPDATE command, such triggers should not
be fired (and typically fail anyway), and similarly, other post-update
actions, such as WCO/RLS checks should not be executed, and might also
lead to unexpected failures.
Therefore, as with ExecUpdate(), make ExecMergeMatched() return
immediately if ExecUpdateAct() reports that a cross-partition update
was done, to be sure that no further processing is done for that
tuple.
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWjBgagyNZs02vgDF0DvASYj-iHTFtXG2-nP3orZhmtcw%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When an UPDATE/DELETE/MERGE's target table is an old-style
inheritance tree, it's possible for the parent to get excluded
from the plan while some children are not. (I believe this is
only possible if we can prove that a CHECK ... NO INHERIT
constraint on the parent contradicts the query WHERE clause,
so it's a very unusual case.) In such a case, ExecInitModifyTable
mistakenly concluded that the first surviving child is the target
table, leading to at least two bugs:
1. The wrong table's statement-level triggers would get fired.
2. In v16 and up, it was possible to fail with "invalid perminfoindex
0 in RTE with relid nnnn" due to the child RTE not having permissions
data included in the query plan. This was hard to reproduce reliably
because it did not occur unless the update triggered some non-HOT
index updates.
In v14 and up, this is easy to fix by defining ModifyTable.rootRelation
to be the parent RTE in plain inheritance as well as partitioned cases.
While the wrong-triggers bug also appears in older branches, the
relevant code in both the planner and executor is quite a bit
different, so it would take a good deal of effort to develop and
test a suitable patch. Given the lack of field complaints about the
trigger issue, I'll desist for now. (Patching v11 for this seems
unwise anyway, given that it will have no more releases after next
month.)
Per bug #18147 from Hans Buschmann.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18147-6fc796538913ee88@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Under some circumstances, concurrent MERGE operations could lead to
inconsistent results, that varied according the plan chosen. This was
caused by a lack of rowmarks on the source relation, which meant that
EvalPlanQual rechecking was not guaranteed to return the same source
tuples when re-running the join query.
Fix by ensuring that preprocess_rowmarks() sets up PlanRowMarks for
all non-target relations used in MERGE, in the same way that it does
for UPDATE and DELETE.
Per bug #18103. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18103-c4386baab8e355e3%40postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If MERGE executes an UPDATE action on a table with row-level security,
the code incorrectly applied the WITH CHECK clauses from the target
table's INSERT policies to new rows, instead of the clauses from the
table's UPDATE policies. In addition, it failed to check new rows
against the target table's SELECT policies, if SELECT permissions were
required (likely to always be the case).
In addition, if MERGE executes a DO NOTHING action for matched rows,
the code incorrectly applied the USING clauses from the target table's
DELETE policies to existing target tuples. These policies were applied
as checks that would throw an error, if they did not pass.
Fix this, so that a MERGE UPDATE action applies the same RLS policies
as a plain UPDATE query with a WHERE clause, and a DO NOTHING action
does not apply any RLS checks (other than adding clauses from SELECT
policies to the join).
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Stephen Frost.
Security: CVE-2023-39418
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Run pgindent, pgperltidy, and reformat-dat-files.
This set of diffs is a bit larger than typical. We've updated to
pg_bsd_indent 2.1.2, which properly indents variable declarations that
have multi-line initialization expressions (the continuation lines are
now indented one tab stop). We've also updated to perltidy version
20230309 and changed some of its settings, which reduces its desire to
add whitespace to lines to make assignments etc. line up. Going
forward, that should make for fewer random-seeming changes to existing
code.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230428092545.qfb3y5wcu4cm75ur@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The idea of EvalPlanQual is that we replace the query's scan of the
result relation with a single injected tuple, and see if we get a
tuple out, thereby implying that the injected tuple still passes the
query quals. (In join cases, other relations in the query are still
scanned normally.) This logic was not updated when commit 86dc90056
made it possible for a single DML query plan to have multiple result
relations, when the query target relation has inheritance or partition
children. We replaced the output for the current result relation
successfully, but other result relations were still scanned normally;
thus, if any other result relation contained a tuple satisfying the
quals, we'd think the EPQ check passed, even if it did not pass for
the injected tuple itself. This would lead to update or delete
actions getting performed when they should have been skipped due to
a conflicting concurrent update in READ COMMITTED isolation mode.
Fix by blocking all sibling result relations from emitting tuples
during an EvalPlanQual recheck. In the back branches, the fix is
complicated a bit by the need to not change the size of struct
EPQState (else we'd have ABI-breaking changes in offsets in
struct ModifyTableState). Like the back-patches of 3f7836ff6
and 4b3e37993, add a separately palloc'd struct to avoid that.
The logic is the same as in HEAD otherwise.
This is only a live bug back to v14 where 86dc90056 came in.
However, I chose to back-patch the test cases further, on the
grounds that this whole area is none too well tested. I skipped
doing so in v11 though because none of the test applied cleanly,
and it didn't quite seem worth extra work for a branch with only
six months to live.
Per report from Ante Krešić (via Aleksander Alekseev)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJ7c6TMBTN3rcz4=AjYhLPD_w3FFT0Wq_C15jxCDn8U4tZnH1g@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The leak would show up when using batch inserts with foreign tables
included in a partition tree, as the slots used in the batch were not
reset once processed. In order to fix this problem, some
ExecClearTuple() are added to clean up the slots used once a batch is
filled and processed, mapping with the number of slots currently in use
as tracked by the counter ri_NumSlots.
This buffer refcount leak has been introduced in b676ac4 with the
addition of the executor facility to improve bulk inserts for FDWs, so
backpatch down to 14.
Alexander has provided the patch (slightly modified by me). The test
for postgres_fdw comes from me, based on the test case that the author
has sent in the report.
Author: Alexander Pyhalov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b035780a740efd38dc30790c76927255@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch-through: 14
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Author: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/699beab4-a6ca-92c9-f152-f559caf6dc25@gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This fixes many spelling mistakes in comments, but a few references to
invalid parameter names, function names and option names too in comments
and also some in string constants
Also, fix an #undef that was undefining the incorrect definition
Author: Alexander Lakhin
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d5f68d19-c0fc-91a9-118d-7c6a5a3f5fad@gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230323003003.plgaxjqahjgkuxrk%40awork3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
| |
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230323003003.plgaxjqahjgkuxrk%40awork3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently, in read committed transaction isolation mode (default), we have the
following sequence of actions when tuple_update()/tuple_delete() finds
the tuple updated by concurrent transaction.
1. Attempt to update/delete tuple with tuple_update()/tuple_delete(), which
returns TM_Updated.
2. Lock tuple with tuple_lock().
3. Re-evaluate plan qual (recheck if we still need to update/delete and
calculate the new tuple for update).
4. Second attempt to update/delete tuple with tuple_update()/tuple_delete().
This attempt should be successful, since the tuple was previously locked.
This patch eliminates step 2 by taking the lock during first
tuple_update()/tuple_delete() call. Heap table access method saves some
efforts by checking the updated tuple once instead of twice. Future
undo-based table access methods, which will start from the latest row version,
can immediately place a lock there.
The code in nodeModifyTable.c is simplified by removing the nested switch/case.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdua-YFw3XTprfutzGp28xXLigFtzNbuFY8yPhqeq6X5kg%40mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Aleksander Alekseev, Pavel Borisov, Vignesh C, Mason Sharp
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Chris Travers
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When we lock tuple using table_tuple_lock() then we at the same time fetch
the locked tuple to the slot. In this case we can skip extra
table_tuple_fetch_row_version() thank to we've already fetched the 'old' tuple
and nobody can change it concurrently since it's locked.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdua-YFw3XTprfutzGp28xXLigFtzNbuFY8yPhqeq6X5kg%40mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Aleksander Alekseev, Pavel Borisov, Vignesh C, Mason Sharp
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Chris Travers
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When determining whether an index update may be skipped by using HOT, we
can ignore attributes indexed by block summarizing indexes without
references to individual tuples that need to be cleaned up.
A new type TU_UpdateIndexes provides a signal to the executor to
determine which indexes to update - no indexes, all indexes, or only the
summarizing indexes.
This also removes rd_indexattr list, and replaces it with rd_attrsvalid
flag. The list was not used anywhere, and a simple flag is sufficient.
This was originally committed as 5753d4ee32, but then got reverted by
e3fcca0d0d because of correctness issues.
Original patch by Josef Simanek, various fixes and improvements by Tomas
Vondra and me.
Authors: Matthias van de Meent, Josef Simanek, Tomas Vondra
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra, Alvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/05ebcb44-f383-86e3-4f31-0a97a55634cf@enterprisedb.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFp7QwpMRGcDAQumN7onN9HjrJ3u4X3ZRXdGFT0K5G2JWvnbWg%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This ensures that the row count in the command tag for a MERGE is
correctly computed in the case where UPDATEs or DELETEs are skipped
due to a BEFORE ROW trigger returning NULL (the INSERT case was
already handled correctly by ExecMergeNotMatched() calling
ExecInsert()).
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCU8XEmR0JWKDtyb7iZ%3DqCffxS9uyJt0iOZ4TV4RT%2Bow1w%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If MERGE attempts an UPDATE or DELETE on a table with BEFORE ROW
triggers, or a cross-partition UPDATE (with or without triggers), and
a concurrent UPDATE or DELETE happens, the merge code would fail.
In some cases this would lead to a crash, while in others it would
cause the wrong merge action to be executed, or no action at all. The
immediate cause of the crash was the trigger code calling
ExecGetUpdateNewTuple() as part of the EPQ mechanism, which fails
because during a merge ri_projectNew is NULL, since merge has its own
per-action projection information, which ExecGetUpdateNewTuple() knows
nothing about.
Fix by arranging for the trigger code to exit early, returning the
TM_Result and TM_FailureData information, if a concurrent modification
is detected, allowing the merge code to do the necessary EPQ handling
in its own way. Similarly, prevent the cross-partition update code
from doing any EPQ processing for a merge, allowing the merge code to
work out what it needs to do.
This leads to a number of simplifications in nodeModifyTable.c. Most
notably, the ModifyTableContext->GetUpdateNewTuple() callback is no
longer needed, and mergeGetUpdateNewTuple() can be deleted, since
there is no longer any requirement for get-update-new-tuple during a
merge. Similarly, ModifyTableContext->cpUpdateRetrySlot is no longer
needed. Thus ExecGetUpdateNewTuple() and the retry_slot handling of
ExecCrossPartitionUpdate() can be restored to how they were in v14,
before the merge code was added, and ExecMergeMatched() no longer
needs any special-case handling for cross-partition updates.
While at it, tidy up ExecUpdateEpilogue() a bit, making it handle
recheckIndexes locally, rather than passing it in as a parameter,
ensuring that it is freed properly. This dates back to when it was
split off from ExecUpdate() to support merge.
Per bug #17809 from Alexander Lakhin, and follow-up investigation of
bug #17792, also from Alexander Lakhin.
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced, taking care to preserve
backwards-compatibility of the trigger API in v15 for any extensions
that might use it.
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/17809-9e6650bef133f0fe%40postgresql.org
https://postgr.es/m/17792-0f89452029662c36%40postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If UPDATE is forced to retry after an EvalPlanQual check, it neglected
to repeat GENERATED-column computations, even though those might well
have changed since we're dealing with a different tuple than before.
Fixing this is mostly a matter of looping back a bit further when
we retry. In v15 and HEAD that's most easily done by altering the API
of ExecUpdateAct so that it includes computing GENERATED expressions.
Also, if an UPDATE in a partitioned table turns into a cross-partition
INSERT operation, we failed to recompute GENERATED columns. That's a
bug since 8bf6ec3ba allowed partitions to have different generation
expressions; although it seems to have no ill effects before that.
Fixing this is messier because we can now have situations where the same
query needs both the UPDATE-aligned set of GENERATED columns and the
INSERT-aligned set, and it's unclear which set will be generated first
(else we could hack things by forcing the INSERT-aligned set to be
generated, which is indeed how fe9e658f4 made it work for MERGE).
The best fix seems to be to build and store separate sets of expressions
for the INSERT and UPDATE cases. That would create ABI issues in the
back branches, but so far it seems we can leave this alone in the back
branches.
Per bug #17823 from Hisahiro Kauchi. The first part of this affects all
branches back to v12 where GENERATED columns were added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17823-b64909cf7d63de84@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This ensures that the row count in the command tag for a MERGE is
correctly computed. Previously, if MERGE updated a partitioned table,
the row count would be incorrect if any row was moved to a different
partition, since such updates were counted twice.
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWRMG7XX2QEsVL1LswmNo2d_YG8tKTLkpD3=Lp644S7rg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Author: Amul Sul
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b97badUU8_DHNoFCXZxF6YUk0Yb=53rrum168hd1haJgpQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
On MERGE / WHEN MATCHED DELETE it's not possible to get cross-partition
updates, so we don't initialize cpUpdateRetrySlot; however, the code was
not careful to ignore the value in that case. Make it do so.
Backpatch to 15.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17792-0f89452029662c36@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This fixes a bug that, under some circumstances, would cause MERGE to
fail to properly recompute expressions for GENERATED STORED columns.
Formerly, ExecInitModifyTable() did not call ExecInitStoredGenerated()
for a MERGE command, which meant that the generated expressions
information was not computed until later, when the first merge action
was executed. However, if the first merge action to execute was an
UPDATE, then ExecInitStoredGenerated() could decide to skip some some
generated columns, if the columns on which they depended were not
updated, which was a problem if the MERGE also contained an INSERT
action, for which no generated columns should be skipped.
So fix by having ExecInitModifyTable() call ExecInitStoredGenerated()
for MERGE, and assume that it isn't safe to skip any generated columns
in a MERGE. Possibly that could be relaxed, by allowing some generated
columns to be skipped for a MERGE without an INSERT action, but it's
not clear that it's worth the effort.
Noticed while investigating bug #17759. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE
was added.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Tom Lane.
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/17759-e76d9bece1b5421c%40postgresql.org
https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCXb_ezoMCcL0tzKwRGA1x0oeE%3DawTaysRfTPq%2B3wNJn8g%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In commit 8bf6ec3ba I assumed that no code path could reach
ExecGetExtraUpdatedCols without having gone through
ExecInitStoredGenerated. That turns out not to be the case in
logical replication: if there's an ON UPDATE trigger on the target
table, trigger.c will call this code before anybody has set up its
generated columns. Having seen that, I don't have a lot of faith in
there not being other such paths. ExecGetExtraUpdatedCols can call
ExecInitStoredGenerated for itself, as long as we are willing to
assume that it is only called in CMD_UPDATE operations, which on
the whole seems like a safer leap of faith.
Per report from Vitaly Davydov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d259d69652b8c2ff50e14cda3c236c7f@postgrespro.ru
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We were identifying the updatable generated columns of inheritance
children by transposing the calculation made for their parent.
However, there's nothing that says a traditional-inheritance child
can't have generated columns that aren't there in its parent, or that
have different dependencies than are in the parent's expression.
(At present it seems that we don't enforce that for partitioning
either, which is likely wrong to some degree or other; but the case
clearly needs to be handled with traditional inheritance.)
Hence, drop the very-klugy-anyway "extraUpdatedCols" RTE field
in favor of identifying which generated columns depend on updated
columns during executor startup. In HEAD we can remove
extraUpdatedCols altogether; in back branches, it's still there but
always empty. Another difference between the HEAD and back-branch
versions of this patch is that in HEAD we can add the new bitmap field
to ResultRelInfo, but that would cause an ABI break in back branches.
Like 4b3e37993, add a List field at the end of struct EState instead.
Back-patch to v13. The bogus calculation is also being made in v12,
but it doesn't have the same visible effect because we don't use it
to decide which generated columns to recalculate; as a consequence of
which the patch doesn't apply easily. I think that there might still
be a demonstrable bug associated with trigger firing conditions, but
that's such a weird corner-case usage that I'm content to leave it
unfixed in v12.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFshLKNvQUd1DgwJ-7tsTp=dwv7KZqXC4j2wYBV1aCDUA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2793383.1672944799@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 11
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In commit ffbb7e65a, I added a ModifyTableState member to ResultRelInfo
to save the owning ModifyTableState for use by nodeModifyTable.c when
performing batch inserts, but as pointed out by Tom Lane, that changed
the array stride of es_result_relations, and that would break any
previously-compiled extension code that accesses that array. Fix by
removing that member from ResultRelInfo and instead adding a List member
at the end of EState to save such ModifyTableStates.
Per report from Tom Lane. Back-patch to v14, like the previous commit;
I chose to apply the patch to HEAD as well, to make back-patching easy.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/4065383.1669395453%40sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
ri_RootToPartitionMap is currently only initialized for tuple routing
target partitions, though a future commit will need the ability to use
it even for the non-partition child tables, so make adjustments to the
decouple it from the partitioning code.
Also, make it lazily initialized via ExecGetRootToChildMap(), making
that function its preferred access path. Existing third-party code
accessing it directly should no longer do so; consequently, it's been
renamed to ri_RootToChildMap, which also makes it consistent with
ri_ChildToRootMap.
ExecGetRootToChildMap() houses the logic of setting the map appropriately
depending on whether a given child relation is partition or not.
To support this, also add a separate entry point for TupleConversionMap
creation that receives an AttrMap. No new code here, just split an
existing function in two.
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqEYUhDXSK5BTvG_xk=eaAEJCD4GS3C6uH7ybBvv+Z_Tmg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit b663a4136, which allowed FDWs to INSERT rows in bulk, added to
nodeModifyTable.c code to flush pending inserts to the foreign-table
result relation(s) before completing processing of the ModifyTable node,
but the code failed to take into account the case where the INSERT query
has modifying CTEs, leading to incorrect results.
Also, that commit failed to flush pending inserts before firing BEFORE
ROW triggers so that rows are visible to such triggers.
In that commit we scanned through EState's
es_tuple_routing_result_relations or es_opened_result_relations list to
find the foreign-table result relations to which pending inserts are
flushed, but that would be inefficient in some cases. So to fix, 1) add
a List member to EState to record the insert-pending result relations,
and 2) modify nodeModifyTable.c so that it adds the foreign-table result
relation to the list in ExecInsert() if appropriate, and flushes pending
inserts properly using the list where needed.
While here, fix a copy-and-pasteo in a comment in ExecBatchInsert(),
which was added by that commit.
Back-patch to v14 where that commit appeared.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPmGK16qutyCmyJJzgQOhfBq%3DNoGDqTB6O0QBZTihrbqre%2BoxA%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reporting tuples for which nothing is done is useless and goes against
the documented behavior, so don't do it.
Backpatch to 15.
Reported by: Luca Ferrari
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKoxK+42MmACUh6s8XzASQKizbzrtOGA6G1UjzCP75NcXHsiNw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This commend references a struct that disappeared before MERGE was
merged ... and ExecDelete is not called by the committed MERGE anyway.
Revert to the original wording.
Backpatch to 15
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
According to the C standard, a label must followed by a statement.
If there was ever a time we needed an empty statement here, it was
a long time ago.
Japin Li
Reviewed by Julien Rouhaud
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/MEYP282MB16690F40189A4F060B41D56DB65E9%40MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove the stale text that is a leftover from an earlier version of the
patch to add support for batch insertion, and adjust the wording in the
remaining text.
Back-patch to v14 where batch insertion came in.
Review and wording adjustment by Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPmGK14goatHPHQv2Aeu_UTKqZ%2BBO%2BP%2Bzd3HKv5D%2BdyyfWKDSw%40mail.gmail.com
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Ordinarily the functions called in this loop ought to have plenty
of CFIs themselves; but we've now seen a case where no such CFI is
reached, making the loop uninterruptible. Even though that's from
a recently-introduced bug, it seems prudent to install a CFI at
the loop level in all branches.
Per discussion of bug #17558 from Andrew Kesper (an actual fix for
that bug will follow).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17558-3f6599ffcf52fd4a@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Run pgindent, pgperltidy, and reformat-dat-files.
I manually fixed a couple of comments that pgindent uglified.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Should have been done this way to start with, but I failed to notice
This way we avoid some pointless initialization, and better contains the
variable to exist in the scope where it is really used.
Reviewed-by: Michaël Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/202204191345.qerjy3kxi3eb@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There's no reason to keep a separate local variable when we have a place
for it elsewhere. This allows to simplify some code.
Reviewed-by: Michaël Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/202204191345.qerjy3kxi3eb@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
MERGE performs actions that modify rows in the target table using a
source table or query. MERGE provides a single SQL statement that can
conditionally INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE rows -- a task that would otherwise
require multiple PL statements. For example,
MERGE INTO target AS t
USING source AS s
ON t.tid = s.sid
WHEN MATCHED AND t.balance > s.delta THEN
UPDATE SET balance = t.balance - s.delta
WHEN MATCHED THEN
DELETE
WHEN NOT MATCHED AND s.delta > 0 THEN
INSERT VALUES (s.sid, s.delta)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
DO NOTHING;
MERGE works with regular tables, partitioned tables and inheritance
hierarchies, including column and row security enforcement, as well as
support for row and statement triggers and transition tables therein.
MERGE is optimized for OLTP and is parameterizable, though also useful
for large scale ETL/ELT. MERGE is not intended to be used in preference
to existing single SQL commands for INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE since there
is some overhead. MERGE can be used from PL/pgSQL.
MERGE does not support targetting updatable views or foreign tables, and
RETURNING clauses are not allowed either. These limitations are likely
fixable with sufficient effort. Rewrite rules are also not supported,
but it's not clear that we'd want to support them.
Author: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Author: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> (earlier versions)
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> (earlier versions)
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> (earlier versions)
Reviewed-by: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkJdBuxj9PO=2QaO9-3h3xGbQPZ34kJH=HukRekwM-GZg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20201231134736.GA25392@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Valgrind animal skink shows a crash in this new code. I couldn't
reproduce the problem locally, but going by blind code inspection,
initializing insert_destrel should be sufficient to fix the problem.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When an update on a partitioned table referenced in foreign key
constraints causes a row to move from one partition to another,
the fact that the move is implemented as a delete followed by an insert
on the target partition causes the foreign key triggers to have
surprising behavior. For example, a given foreign key's delete trigger
which implements the ON DELETE CASCADE clause of that key will delete
any referencing rows when triggered for that internal DELETE, although
it should not, because the referenced row is simply being moved from one
partition of the referenced root partitioned table into another, not
being deleted from it.
This commit teaches trigger.c to skip queuing such delete trigger events
on the leaf partitions in favor of an UPDATE event fired on the root
target relation. Doing so is sensible because both the old and the new
tuple "logically" belong to the root relation.
The after trigger event queuing interface now allows passing the source
and the target partitions of a particular cross-partition update when
registering the update event for the root partitioned table. Along with
the two ctids of the old and the new tuple, the after trigger event now
also stores the OIDs of those partitions. The tuples fetched from the
source and the target partitions are converted into the root table
format, if necessary, before they are passed to the trigger function.
The implementation currently has a limitation that only the foreign keys
pointing into the query's target relation are considered, not those of
its sub-partitioned partitions. That seems like a reasonable
limitation, because it sounds rare to have distinct foreign keys
pointing to sub-partitioned partitions instead of to the root table.
This misbehavior stems from commit f56f8f8da6af (which added support for
foreign keys to reference partitioned tables) not paying sufficient
attention to commit 2f178441044b (which had introduced cross-partition
updates a year earlier). Even though the former commit goes back to
Postgres 12, we're not backpatching this fix at this time for fear of
destabilizing things too much, and because there are a few ABI breaks in
it that we'd have to work around in older branches. It also depends on
commit f4566345cf40, which had its own share of backpatchability issues
as well.
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reported-by: Eduard Català <eduard.catala@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFvkBCmfwkQX_yBqv2Wz8ugUGiBDxum8=WvVbfU1TXaNg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAL54xNZsLwEM1XCk5yW9EqaRzsZYHuWsHQkA2L5MOSKXAwviCQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Authored by Amit Langote and myself independently
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqGCjcH0gG-=tM7hhP7TEDmzrHMHJbPGSHtHgFmx9mnFkg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Create subroutines ExecUpdatePrologue / ExecUpdateAct /
ExecUpdateEpilogue, and similar for ExecDelete.
Introduce a new struct to be used internally in nodeModifyTable.c,
dubbed ModifyTableContext, which contains all context information needed
to perform these operations, as well as ExecInsert and others.
This allows using a different schedule and a different way of evaluating
the results of these operations, which can be exploited by a later
commit introducing support for MERGE. It also makes ExecUpdate and
ExecDelete proper shorter and (hopefully) simpler.
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/202202271724.4z7xv3cf46kv@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 10
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The FDW batching code was using the same tuple descriptor both for all
slots (regular and plan slots), but that's incorrect - the subplan may
use a different descriptor. Currently this is benign, because batching
is used only for INSERTs, and in that case the descriptors always match.
But that would change if we allow batching UPDATEs.
Fix by copying the appropriate tuple descriptor. Backpatch to 14, where
the FDW batching was implemented.
Author: Amit Langote
Backpatch-through: 14, where FDW batching was added
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BHiwqEWd5B0-e-RvixGGUrNvGkjH2s4m95%3DJcwUnyV%3Df0rAKQ%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Along the way make a slight adjustment to
src/include/utils/queryjumble.h to avoid an unused typedef.
|
