aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAge
* Fix SQL-spec incompatibilities in new transition table feature.Tom Lane2017-09-16
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The standard says that all changes of the same kind (insert, update, or delete) caused in one table by a single SQL statement should be reported in a single transition table; and by that, they mean to include foreign key enforcement actions cascading from the statement's direct effects. It's also reasonable to conclude that if the standard had wCTEs, they would say that effects of wCTEs applying to the same table as each other or the outer statement should be merged into one transition table. We weren't doing it like that. Hence, arrange to merge tuples from multiple update actions into a single transition table as much as we can. There is a problem, which is that if the firing of FK enforcement triggers and after-row triggers with transition tables is interspersed, we might need to report more tuples after some triggers have already seen the transition table. It seems like a bad idea for the transition table to be mutable between trigger calls. There's no good way around this without a major redesign of the FK logic, so for now, resolve it by opening a new transition table each time this happens. Also, ensure that AFTER STATEMENT triggers fire just once per statement, or once per transition table when we're forced to make more than one. Previous versions of Postgres have allowed each FK enforcement query to cause an additional firing of the AFTER STATEMENT triggers for the referencing table, but that's certainly not per spec. (We're still doing multiple firings of BEFORE STATEMENT triggers, though; is that something worth changing?) Also, forbid using transition tables with column-specific UPDATE triggers. The spec requires such transition tables to show only the tuples for which the UPDATE trigger would have fired, which means maintaining multiple transition tables or else somehow filtering the contents at readout. Maybe someday we'll bother to support that option, but it looks like a lot of trouble for a marginal feature. The transition tables are now managed by the AfterTriggers data structures, rather than being directly the responsibility of ModifyTable nodes. This removes a subtransaction-lifespan memory leak introduced by my previous band-aid patch 3c4359521. In passing, refactor the AfterTriggers data structures to reduce the management overhead for them, by using arrays of structs rather than several parallel arrays for per-query-level and per-subtransaction state. I failed to resist the temptation to do some copy-editing on the SGML docs about triggers, above and beyond merely documenting the effects of this patch. Back-patch to v10, because we don't want the semantics of transition tables to change post-release. Patch by me, with help and review from Thomas Munro. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170909064853.25630.12825@wrigleys.postgresql.org
* Quick-hack fix for foreign key cascade vs triggers with transition tables.Tom Lane2017-09-10
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | AFTER triggers using transition tables crashed if they were fired due to a foreign key ON CASCADE update. This is because ExecEndModifyTable flushes the transition tables, on the assumption that any trigger that could need them was already fired during ExecutorFinish. Normally that's true, because we don't allow transition-table-using triggers to be deferred. However, foreign key CASCADE updates force any triggers on the referencing table to be deferred to the outer query level, by means of the EXEC_FLAG_SKIP_TRIGGERS flag. I don't recall all the details of why it's like that and am pretty loath to redesign it right now. Instead, just teach ExecEndModifyTable to skip destroying the TransitionCaptureState when that flag is set. This will allow the transition table data to survive until end of the current subtransaction. This isn't a terribly satisfactory solution, because (1) we might be leaking the transition tables for much longer than really necessary, and (2) as things stand, an AFTER STATEMENT trigger will fire once per RI updating query, ie once per row updated or deleted in the referenced table. I suspect that is not per SQL spec. But redesigning this is a research project that we're certainly not going to get done for v10. So let's go with this hackish answer for now. In passing, tweak AfterTriggerSaveEvent to not save the transition_capture pointer into the event record for a deferrable trigger. This is not necessary to fix the current bug, but it avoids letting dangling pointers to long-gone transition tables persist in the trigger event queue. That's at least a safety feature. It might also allow merging shared trigger states in more cases than before. I added a regression test that demonstrates the crash on unpatched code, and also exposes the behavior of firing the AFTER STATEMENT triggers once per row update. Per bug #14808 from Philippe Beaudoin. Back-patch to v10. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170909064853.25630.12825@wrigleys.postgresql.org
* Even if some partitions are foreign, allow tuple routing.Robert Haas2017-09-07
| | | | | | | | | | This doesn't allow routing tuple to the foreign partitions themselves, but it permits tuples to be routed to regular partitions despite the presence of foreign partitions in the same inheritance hierarchy. Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Amit Langote and by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/bc3db4c1-1693-3b8a-559f-33ad2b50b7ad@lab.ntt.co.jp
* Change tupledesc->attrs[n] to TupleDescAttr(tupledesc, n).Andres Freund2017-08-20
| | | | | | | | | | | This is a mechanical change in preparation for a later commit that will change the layout of TupleDesc. Introducing a macro to abstract the details of where attributes are stored will allow us to change that in separate step and revise it in future. Author: Thomas Munro, editorialized by Andres Freund Reviewed-By: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
* Fix interaction of triggers, partitioning, and EXPLAIN ANALYZE.Robert Haas2017-08-18
| | | | | | | | | | | Add a new EState member es_leaf_result_relations, so that the trigger code knows about ResultRelInfos created by tuple routing. Also make sure ExplainPrintTriggers knows about partition-related ResultRelInfos. Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Amit Langote Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/57163e18-8e56-da83-337a-22f2c0008051@lab.ntt.co.jp
* Final pgindent + perltidy run for v10.Tom Lane2017-08-14
|
* Improve ExecModifyTable comments.Robert Haas2017-08-03
| | | | | | | | | | | | Some of these comments wrongly implied that only an AFTER ROW trigger will cause a 'wholerow' attribute to be present for a foreign table, but a BEFORE ROW trigger can have the same effect. Others implied that it would always be present for a foreign table, but that's not true either. Etsuro Fujita and Robert Haas Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/10026bc7-1403-ef85-9e43-c6100c1cc0e3@lab.ntt.co.jp
* Teach map_partition_varattnos to handle whole-row expressions.Robert Haas2017-08-03
| | | | | | | | | | Otherwise, partitioned tables with RETURNING expressions or subject to a WITH CHECK OPTION do not work properly. Amit Langote, reviewed by Amit Khandekar and Etsuro Fujita. A few comment changes by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/9a39df80-871e-6212-0684-f93c83be4097@lab.ntt.co.jp
* Move ExecProcNode from dispatch to function pointer based model.Andres Freund2017-07-30
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This allows us to add stack-depth checks the first time an executor node is called, and skip that overhead on following calls. Additionally it yields a nice speedup. While it'd probably have been a good idea to have that check all along, it has become more important after the new expression evaluation framework in b8d7f053c5c2bf2a7e - there's no stack depth check in common paths anymore now. We previously relied on ExecEvalExpr() being executed somewhere. We should move towards that model for further routines, but as this is required for v10, it seems better to only do the necessary (which already is quite large). Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane Reported-By: Julien Rouhaud Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us https://postgr.es/m/b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com
* Move interrupt checking from ExecProcNode() to executor nodes.Andres Freund2017-07-30
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In a followup commit ExecProcNode(), and especially the large switch it contains, will largely be replaced by a function pointer directly to the correct node. The node functions will then get invoked by a thin inline function wrapper. To avoid having to include miscadmin.h in headers - CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() - move the interrupt checks into the individual executor routines. While looking through all executor nodes, I noticed a number of arguably missing interrupt checks, add these too. Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane Reviewed-By: Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us
* Use a real RT index when setting up partition tuple routing.Robert Haas2017-07-17
| | | | | | | | | | | Before, we always used a dummy value of 1, but that's not right when the partitioned table being modified is inside of a WITH clause rather than part of the main query. Amit Langote, reported and reviewd by Etsuro Fujita, with a comment change by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/ee12f648-8907-77b5-afc0-2980bcb0aa37@lab.ntt.co.jp
* Fix transition tables for wCTEs.Andrew Gierth2017-06-28
| | | | | | | | | The original coding didn't handle this case properly; each separate DML substatement needs its own set of transitions. Patch by Thomas Munro Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAL9smLCDQ%3D2o024rBgtD4WihzX8B3C6u_oSQ2K3%2BR5grJrV0bg%40mail.gmail.com
* Fix transition tables for partition/inheritance.Andrew Gierth2017-06-28
| | | | | | | | | | | We disallow row-level triggers with transition tables on child tables. Transition tables for triggers on the parent table contain only those columns present in the parent. (We can't mix tuple formats in a single transition table.) Patch by Thomas Munro Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BTgmoZzTBBAsEUh4MazAN7ga%3D8SsMC-Knp-6cetts9yNZUCcg%40mail.gmail.com
* Phase 3 of pgindent updates.Tom Lane2017-06-21
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they flow past the right margin. By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin, then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin, if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column limit. This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers. Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
* Phase 2 of pgindent updates.Tom Lane2017-06-21
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments following #endif to not obey the general rule. Commit e3860ffa4dd0dad0dd9eea4be9cc1412373a8c89 wasn't actually using the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after. Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else. That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
* Re-run pgindent.Tom Lane2017-06-13
| | | | | | | | This is just to have a clean base state for testing of Piotr Stefaniak's latest version of FreeBSD indent. I fixed up a couple of places where pgindent would have changed format not-nicely. perltidy not included. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/VI1PR03MB119959F4B65F000CA7CD9F6BF2CC0@VI1PR03MB1199.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
* Fix confusion about number of subplans in partitioned INSERT setup.Tom Lane2017-06-12
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | ExecInitModifyTable() thought there was a plan per partition, but no, there's only one. The problem had escaped detection so far because there would only be visible misbehavior if there were a SubPlan (not an InitPlan) in the quals being duplicated for each partition. However, valgrind detected a bogus memory access in test cases added by commit 4f7a95be2, and investigation of that led to discovery of the bug. The additional test case added here crashes without the patch. Patch by Amit Langote, test case by me. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/10974.1497227727@sss.pgh.pa.us
* Prevent BEFORE triggers from violating partitioning constraints.Robert Haas2017-06-07
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Since tuple-routing implicitly checks the partitioning constraints at least for the levels of the partitioning hierarchy it traverses, there's normally no need to revalidate the partitioning constraint after performing tuple routing. However, if there's a BEFORE trigger on the target partition, it could modify the tuple, causing the partitioning constraint to be violated. Catch that case. Also, instead of checking the root table's partition constraint after tuple-routing, check it beforehand. Otherwise, the rules for when the partitioning constraint gets checked get too complicated, because you sometimes have to check part of the constraint but not all of it. This effectively reverts commit 39162b2030fb0a35a6bb28dc636b5a71b8df8d1c in favor of a different approach altogether. Report by me. Initial debugging by Jeevan Ladhe. Patch by Amit Langote, reviewed by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa9DTgeVOqopieV8d1QRpddmP65aCdxyjdYDoEO5pS5KA@mail.gmail.com
* Post-PG 10 beta1 pgindent runBruce Momjian2017-05-17
| | | | perltidy run not included.
* Fire per-statement triggers on partitioned tables.Robert Haas2017-05-01
| | | | | | | | | | | Even though no actual tuples are ever inserted into a partitioned table (the actual tuples are in the partitions, not the partitioned table itself), we still need to have a ResultRelInfo for the partitioned table, or per-statement triggers won't get fired. Amit Langote, per a report from Rajkumar Raghuwanshi. Reviewed by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6%3DwYospCRY2J4XEFuVy0L41S%3Dfic7rmkbsU-GXhhSbmBg%40mail.gmail.com
* Improve castNode notation by introducing list-extraction-specific variants.Tom Lane2017-04-10
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This extends the castNode() notation introduced by commit 5bcab1114 to provide, in one step, extraction of a list cell's pointer and coercion to a concrete node type. For example, "lfirst_node(Foo, lc)" is the same as "castNode(Foo, lfirst(lc))". Almost half of the uses of castNode that have appeared so far include a list extraction call, so this is pretty widely useful, and it saves a few more keystrokes compared to the old way. As with the previous patch, back-patch the addition of these macros to pg_list.h, so that the notation will be available when back-patching. Patch by me, after an idea of Andrew Gierth's. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/14197.1491841216@sss.pgh.pa.us
* Fix reporting of violations in ExecConstraints, again.Robert Haas2017-04-10
| | | | | | | | | | | | We decided in f1b4c771ea74f42447dccaed42ffcdcccf3aa694 to pass the original slot to ExecConstraints(), but that breaks when there are BEFORE ROW triggers involved. So we need to do reverse-map the tuples back to the original descriptor instead, as Amit originally proposed. Amit Langote, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat. One overlooked comment fixed by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/b3a17254-6849-e542-2353-bde4e880b6a4@lab.ntt.co.jp
* Faster expression evaluation and targetlist projection.Andres Freund2017-03-25
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation. Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation. This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier. The speed gains primarily come from: - non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead - simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without function calls - sharing some state between different sub-expressions - reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of nearly all of the previously used linked lists - more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding constant re-checks at evaluation time Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation. The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.: - basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where initialization overhead is measurable. - optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential work has already been made. - optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have been made here too. The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some backward-incompatible changes: - Function permission checks are now done during expression initialization, whereas previously they were done during execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a different array type previously didn't perform checks. - The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once during expression initialization, previously it was re-built every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior around might still change. Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane, changes by Heikki Linnakangas Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
* Don't scan partitioned tables.Robert Haas2017-03-21
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Partitioned tables do not contain any data; only their unpartitioned descendents need to be scanned. However, the partitioned tables still need to be locked, even though they're not scanned. To make that work, Append and MergeAppend relations now need to carry a list of (unscanned) partitioned relations that must be locked, and InitPlan must lock all partitioned result relations. Aside from the obvious advantage of avoiding some work at execution time, this has two other advantages. First, it may improve the planner's decision-making in some cases since the empty relation might throw things off. Second, it paves the way to getting rid of the storage for partitioned tables altogether. Amit Langote, reviewed by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/6837c359-45c4-8044-34d1-736756335a15@lab.ntt.co.jp
* Use the new castNode() macro in a number of places.Andres Freund2017-01-26
| | | | | | | | | This is far from a pervasive conversion, but it's a good starting point. Author: Peter Eisentraut, with some minor changes by me Reviewed-By: Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/c5d387d9-3440-f5e0-f9d4-71d53b9fbe52@2ndquadrant.com
* Fix things so that updatable views work with partitioned tables.Robert Haas2017-01-24
| | | | | | | | Previously, ExecInitModifyTable was missing handling for WITH CHECK OPTION, and view_query_is_auto_updatable was missing handling for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE. Amit Langote, reviewed by me.
* Reindent table partitioning code.Robert Haas2017-01-24
| | | | | | We've accumulated quite a bit of stuff with which pgindent is not quite happy in this code; clean it up to provide a less-annoying base for future pgindent runs.
* Remove obsoleted code relating to targetlist SRF evaluation.Andres Freund2017-01-19
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Since 69f4b9c plain expression evaluation (and thus normal projection) can't return sets of tuples anymore. Thus remove code dealing with that possibility. This will require adjustments in external code using ExecEvalExpr()/ExecProject() - that should neither be hard nor very common. Author: Andres Freund and Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160822214023.aaxz5l4igypowyri@alap3.anarazel.de
* Fix RETURNING to work correctly with partition tuple routing.Robert Haas2017-01-19
| | | | | | | | | | In ExecInsert(), do not switch back to the root partitioned table ResultRelInfo until after we finish ExecProcessReturning(), so that RETURNING projection is done using the partition's descriptor. For the projection to work correctly, we must initialize the same for each leaf partition during ModifyTableState initialization. Amit Langote
* Fix reporting of constraint violations for table partitioning.Robert Haas2017-01-04
| | | | | | | | | After a tuple is routed to a partition, it has been converted from the root table's row type to the partition's row type. ExecConstraints needs to report the failure using the original tuple and the parent's tuple descriptor rather than the ones for the selected partition. Amit Langote
* Move partition_tuple_slot out of EState.Robert Haas2017-01-04
| | | | | | | | | | | Commit 2ac3ef7a01df859c62d0a02333b646d65eaec5ff added a TupleTapleSlot for partition tuple slot to EState (es_partition_tuple_slot) but it's more logical to have it as part of ModifyTableState (mt_partition_tuple_slot) and CopyState (partition_tuple_slot). Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/1bd459d9-4c0c-197a-346e-e5e59e217d97@lab.ntt.co.jp Amit Langote, per a gripe from me
* Update copyright via script for 2017Bruce Momjian2017-01-03
|
* Fix tuple routing in cases where tuple descriptors don't match.Robert Haas2016-12-22
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The previous coding failed to work correctly when we have a multi-level partitioned hierarchy where tables at successive levels have different attribute numbers for the partition key attributes. To fix, have each PartitionDispatch object store a standalone TupleTableSlot initialized with the TupleDesc of the corresponding partitioned table, along with a TupleConversionMap to map tuples from the its parent's rowtype to own rowtype. After tuple routing chooses a leaf partition, we must use the leaf partition's tuple descriptor, not the root table's. To that end, a dedicated TupleTableSlot for tuple routing is now allocated in EState. Amit Langote
* Refactor partition tuple routing code to reduce duplication.Robert Haas2016-12-21
| | | | Amit Langote
* Clean up code, comments, and formatting for table partitioning.Robert Haas2016-12-13
| | | | | Amit Langote, plus pgindent-ing by me. Inspired in part by review comments from Tomas Vondra.
* Implement table partitioning.Robert Haas2016-12-07
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences. The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed. Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries. Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an expression. Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible. Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova, Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
* Avoid testing tuple visibility without buffer lock.Tom Lane2016-10-23
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | INSERT ... ON CONFLICT (specifically ExecCheckHeapTupleVisible) contains another example of this unsafe coding practice. It is much harder to get a failure out of it than the case fixed in commit 6292c2339, because in most scenarios any hint bits that could be set would have already been set earlier in the command. However, Konstantin Knizhnik reported a failure with a custom transaction manager, and it's clearly possible to get a failure via a race condition in async-commit mode. For lack of a reproducible example, no regression test case in this commit. I did some testing with Asserts added to tqual.c's functions, and can say that running "make check-world" exposed these two bugs and no others. The Asserts are messy enough that I've not added them to the code for now. Report: <57EE93C8.8080504@postgrespro.ru> Related-Discussion: <CAO3NbwOycQjt2Oqy2VW-eLTq2M5uGMyHnGm=RNga4mjqcYD7gQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Don't throw serialization errors for self-conflicts in INSERT ON CONFLICT.Tom Lane2016-10-23
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | A transaction that conflicts against itself, for example INSERT INTO t(pk) VALUES (1),(1) ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING; should behave the same regardless of isolation level. It certainly shouldn't throw a serialization error, as retrying will not help. We got this wrong due to the ON CONFLICT logic not considering the case, as reported by Jason Dusek. Core of this patch is by Peter Geoghegan (based on an earlier patch by Thomas Munro), though I didn't take his proposed code refactoring for fear that it might have unexpected side-effects. Test cases by Thomas Munro and myself. Report: <CAO3NbwOycQjt2Oqy2VW-eLTq2M5uGMyHnGm=RNga4mjqcYD7gQ@mail.gmail.com> Related-Discussion: <57EE93C8.8080504@postgrespro.ru>
* pgindent run for 9.6Robert Haas2016-06-09
|
* Directly modify foreign tables.Robert Haas2016-03-18
| | | | | | | | | postgres_fdw can now sent an UPDATE or DELETE statement directly to the foreign server in simple cases, rather than sending a SELECT FOR UPDATE statement and then updating or deleting rows one-by-one. Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Rushabh Lathia, Shigeru Hanada, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Albe Laurenz, Thom Brown, and me.
* When modifying a foreign table, initialize tableoid field properly.Robert Haas2016-02-04
| | | | | | | Failure to do this can cause AFTER ROW triggers or RETURNING expressions that reference this field to misbehave. Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Thom Brown
* Update copyright for 2016Bruce Momjian2016-01-02
| | | | Backpatch certain files through 9.1
* Fix ON CONFLICT UPDATE bug breaking AFTER UPDATE triggers.Andres Freund2015-12-10
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ExecOnConflictUpdate() passed t_ctid of the to-be-updated tuple to ExecUpdate(). That's problematic primarily because of two reason: First and foremost t_ctid could point to a different tuple. Secondly, and that's what triggered the complaint by Stanislav, t_ctid is changed by heap_update() to point to the new tuple version. The behavior of AFTER UPDATE triggers was therefore broken, with NEW.* and OLD.* tuples spuriously identical within AFTER UPDATE triggers. To fix both issues, pass a pointer to t_self of a on-stack HeapTuple instead. Fixing this bug lead to one change in regression tests, which previously failed due to the first issue mentioned above. There's a reasonable expectation that test fails, as it updates one row repeatedly within one INSERT ... ON CONFLICT statement. That is only possible if the second update is triggered via ON CONFLICT ... SET, ON CONFLICT ... WHERE, or by a WITH CHECK expression, as those are executed after ExecOnConflictUpdate() does a visibility check. That could easily be prohibited, but given it's allowed for plain UPDATEs and a rare corner case, it doesn't seem worthwhile. Reported-By: Stanislav Grozev Author: Andres Freund and Peter Geoghegan Discussion: CAA78GVqy1+LisN-8DygekD_Ldfy=BJLarSpjGhytOsgkpMavfQ@mail.gmail.com Backpatch: 9.5, where ON CONFLICT was introduced
* Fix ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for tables with oids.Andres Freund2015-09-28
| | | | | | | | | | When taking the UPDATE path in an INSERT .. ON CONFLICT .. UPDATE tables with oids were not supported. The tuple generated by the update target list was projected without space for an oid - a simple oversight. Reported-By: Peter Geoghegan Author: Andres Freund Backpatch: 9.5, where ON CONFLICT was introduced
* Remove false comment about speculative insertion.Heikki Linnakangas2015-07-27
| | | | | | | | There is no full discussion of speculative insertions in the executor README. There is a high-level explanation in execIndexing.c, but it doesn't seem necessary to refer it from here. Peter Geoghegan
* pgindent run for 9.5Bruce Momjian2015-05-23
|
* Attach ON CONFLICT SET ... WHERE to the correct planstate.Andres Freund2015-05-19
| | | | | | | | | | The previous coding was a leftover from attempting to hang all the on conflict logic onto modify table's child nodes. It appears to not have actually caused problems except for explain. Add test exercising the broken and some other code paths. Author: Peter Geoghegan and Andres Freund
* Fix ON CONFLICT bugs that manifest when used in rules.Andres Freund2015-05-13
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Specifically the tlist and rti of the pseudo "excluded" relation weren't properly treated by expression_tree_walker, which lead to errors when excluded was referenced inside a rule because the varnos where not properly adjusted. Similar omissions in OffsetVarNodes and expression_tree_mutator had less impact, but should obviously be fixed nonetheless. A couple tests of for ON CONFLICT UPDATE into INSERT rule bearing relations have been added. In passing I updated a couple comments.
* Add support for doing late row locking in FDWs.Tom Lane2015-05-12
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Previously, FDWs could only do "early row locking", that is lock a row as soon as it's fetched, even though local restriction/join conditions might discard the row later. This patch adds callbacks that allow FDWs to do late locking in the same way that it's done for regular tables. To make use of this feature, an FDW must support the "ctid" column as a unique row identifier. Currently, since ctid has to be of type TID, the feature is of limited use, though in principle it could be used by postgres_fdw. We may eventually allow FDWs to specify another data type for ctid, which would make it possible for more FDWs to use this feature. This commit does not modify postgres_fdw to use late locking. We've tested some prototype code for that, but it's not in committable shape, and besides it's quite unclear whether it actually makes sense to do late locking against a remote server. The extra round trips required are likely to outweigh any benefit from improved concurrency. Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat, and hacked up a lot by me
* Add support for INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE.Andres Freund2015-05-08
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The newly added ON CONFLICT clause allows to specify an alternative to raising a unique or exclusion constraint violation error when inserting. ON CONFLICT refers to constraints that can either be specified using a inference clause (by specifying the columns of a unique constraint) or by naming a unique or exclusion constraint. DO NOTHING avoids the constraint violation, without touching the pre-existing row. DO UPDATE SET ... [WHERE ...] updates the pre-existing tuple, and has access to both the tuple proposed for insertion and the existing tuple; the optional WHERE clause can be used to prevent an update from being executed. The UPDATE SET and WHERE clauses have access to the tuple proposed for insertion using the "magic" EXCLUDED alias, and to the pre-existing tuple using the table name or its alias. This feature is often referred to as upsert. This is implemented using a new infrastructure called "speculative insertion". It is an optimistic variant of regular insertion that first does a pre-check for existing tuples and then attempts an insert. If a violating tuple was inserted concurrently, the speculatively inserted tuple is deleted and a new attempt is made. If the pre-check finds a matching tuple the alternative DO NOTHING or DO UPDATE action is taken. If the insertion succeeds without detecting a conflict, the tuple is deemed inserted. To handle the possible ambiguity between the excluded alias and a table named excluded, and for convenience with long relation names, INSERT INTO now can alias its target table. Bumps catversion as stored rules change. Author: Peter Geoghegan, with significant contributions from Heikki Linnakangas and Andres Freund. Testing infrastructure by Jeff Janes. Reviewed-By: Heikki Linnakangas, Andres Freund, Robert Haas, Simon Riggs, Dean Rasheed, Stephen Frost and many others.
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2025-05-23 02:02:52 +0000