| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As an optimization, we store "name" columns as cstrings in btree
indexes.
Here we modify it so that Index Only Scans convert these cstrings back
to names with NAMEDATALEN bytes rather than storing the cstring in the
tuple slot, as was happening previously.
Bug: #17855
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin
Reviewed-by: Alexander Lakhin, Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17855-5f523e0f9769a566@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 12, all supported versions
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
No configured-by-FDW events would result in "return" directly out of a
PG_TRY block, making the exception stack dangling. Repair.
Oversight in commit 501cfd07d; back-patch to v14, like that commit, but
as we do not have this issue in HEAD (cf. commit 50c67c201), no need to
apply this patch to it.
In passing, improve a comment about the handling of in-process requests
in a postgres_fdw.c function called from this function.
Alexander Pyhalov, with comment adjustment/improvement by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/425fa29a429b21b0332737c42a4fdc70%40postgrespro.ru
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When a plain aggregate is used as a window function, and the window
frame start is specified as UNBOUNDED PRECEDING, the frame's head
cannot move so we do not need to use moving-aggregate mode. The check
for that was put into initialize_peragg(), failing to notice that
ExecInitWindowAgg() calls that function before it's filled in
winstate->frameOptions. Since makeNode() would have zeroed the field,
this didn't provoke uninitialized-value complaints, nor would the
erroneous decision have resulted in more than a little inefficiency.
Still, it's wrong, so move the initialization of
winstate->frameOptions earlier to make it work properly.
While here, also fix a thinko in a comment. Both errors crept in in
commit a9d9acbf2 which introduced the moving-aggregate mode.
Spotted by Vallimaharajan G. Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18e7f2a5167.fe36253866818.977923893562469143@zohocorp.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, bitmap heap scans only counted lossy and exact pages for
explain when there was at least one visible tuple on the page.
heapam_scan_bitmap_next_block() returned true only if there was a
"valid" page with tuples to be processed. However, the lossy and exact
page counters in EXPLAIN should count the number of pages represented
in a lossy or non-lossy way in the constructed bitmap, regardless of
whether or not the pages ultimately contained visible tuples.
Backpatch to all supported versions.
Author: Melanie Plageman
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAKRu_ZwCwWFeL_H3ia26bP2e7HiKLWt0ZmGXPVwPO6uXq0vaA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAKRu_bxrXeZ2rCnY8LyeC2Ls88KpjWrQ%2BopUrXDRXdcfwFZGA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There is a very ancient hack in check_sql_fn_retval that allows a
single SELECT targetlist entry of composite type to be taken as
supplying all the output columns of a function returning composite.
(This is grotty and fundamentally ambiguous, but it's really hard
to do nested composite-returning functions without it.)
As far as I know, that doesn't cause any problems in ordinary
functions. It's disastrous for procedures however. All procedures
that have any output parameters are labeled with prorettype RECORD,
and the CALL code expects it will get back a record with one column
per output parameter, regardless of whether any of those parameters
is composite. Doing something else leads to an assertion failure
or core dump.
This is simple enough to fix: we just need to not apply that rule
when considering procedures. However, that requires adding another
argument to check_sql_fn_retval, which at least in principle might be
getting called by external callers. Therefore, in the back branches
convert check_sql_fn_retval into an ABI-preserving wrapper around a
new function check_sql_fn_retval_ext.
Per report from Yahor Yuzefovich. This has been broken since we
implemented procedures, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CABz5gWHSjj2df6uG0NRiDhZ_Uz=Y8t0FJP-_SVSsRsnrQT76Gg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For pass-by-reference types, the code added in 0b053e78b, which aimed to
resolve a memory leak, was overly aggressive in resetting the per-tuple
memory context which could result in pfree'd memory being accessed
resulting in failing to find previously cached results in the hash
table.
What was happening was prepare_probe_slot() was switching to the
per-tuple memory context and calling ExecEvalExpr(). ExecEvalExpr() may
have required a memory allocation. Both MemoizeHash_hash() and
MemoizeHash_equal() were aggressively resetting the per-tuple context
and after determining the hash value, the context would have gotten reset
before MemoizeHash_equal() was called. This could have resulted in
MemoizeHash_equal() looking at pfree'd memory.
This is less likely to have caused issues on a production build as some
other allocation would have had to have reused the pfree'd memory to
overwrite it. Otherwise, the original contents would have been intact.
However, this clearly caused issues on MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING builds.
Author: Tender Wang, Andrei Lepikhov
Reported-by: Tender Wang (using SQLancer)
Reviewed-by: Andrei Lepikhov, Richard Guo, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHewXNnT6N6UJkya0z-jLFzVxcwGfeRQSfhiwA+NyLg-x8iGew@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was added
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In the corner case where a function returning RECORD has been
simplified to a RECORD constant or an inlined ROW() expression,
ExecInitFunctionScan failed to cross-check the function's result
rowtype against the coldeflist provided by the calling query.
That happened because get_expr_result_type is able to extract a
tupdesc from such expressions, which led ExecInitFunctionScan to
ignore the coldeflist. (Instead, it used the extracted tupdesc
to check the function's output, which of course always succeeds.)
I have not been able to demonstrate any really serious consequences
from this, because if some column of the result is of the wrong
type and is directly referenced by a Var of the calling query,
CheckVarSlotCompatibility will catch it. However, we definitely do
fail to report the case where the function returns more columns than
the coldeflist expects, and in the converse case where it returns
fewer columns, we get an assert failure (but, seemingly, no worse
results in non-assert builds).
To fix, always build the expected tupdesc from the coldeflist if there
is one, and consult get_expr_result_type only when there isn't one.
Also remove the failing Assert, even though it is no longer reached
after this fix. It doesn't seem to be adding anything useful, since
later checking will deal with cases with the wrong number of columns.
The only other place I could find that is doing something similar
is inline_set_returning_function. There's no live bug there because
we cannot be looking at a Const or RowExpr, but for consistency
change that code to agree with ExecInitFunctionScan.
Per report from PetSerAl. After some debate I've concluded that
this should be back-patched. There is a small risk that somebody
has been relying on such a case not throwing an error, but I judge
this outweighed by the risk that I've missed some way in which the
failure to cross-check has worse consequences than sketched above.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKygsHSerA1eXsJHR9wft3Gn3wfHQ5RfP8XHBzF70_qcrrRvEg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
During the calculations of the maximum for the number of buckets, take into
account that later we round that to the next power of 2.
Reported-by: Karen Talarico
Bug: #16925
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16925-ec96d83529d0d629%40postgresql.org
Author: Thomas Munro, Andrei Lepikhov, Alexander Korotkov
Reviewed-by: Alena Rybakina
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1349d2790 added code to allow DISTINCT and ORDER BY aggregates to work
more efficiently by using presorted input. That commit added some code
that made use of the AggState's tmpcontext and adjusted the
ecxt_outertuple and ecxt_innertuple slots before checking if the current
row is distinct from the previously seen row. That code forgot to set the
TupleTableSlots back to what they were originally, which could result in
errors such as:
ERROR: attribute 1 of type record has wrong type
This only affects aggregate functions which have multiple arguments when
DISTINCT is used. For example: string_agg(DISTINCT col, ', ')
Thanks to Tom Lane for identifying the breaking commit.
Bug: #18264
Reported-by: Vojtěch Beneš
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18264-e363593d7e9feb7d@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 16, where 1349d2790 was added
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If an error is thrown after calling CreateWaitEventSet(), the memory
of a WaitEventSet is free'd as it's allocated in the short-lived
memory context, but the file descriptor (on epoll- or kqueue-based
systems) or handles (on Windows) that it contains are leaked.
Use PG_TRY-FINALLY to ensure it gets freed. (On master, I will apply a
better fix, using ResourceOwners to track the WaitEventSet, but that's
not backpatchable.)
The added test doesn't check for leaking resources, so it passed even
before this commit. But at least it covers the code path.
In the passing, fix misleading comment on what the 'nevents' argument
to WaitEventSetWait means.
Report by Alexander Lakhin, analysis and suggestion for the fix by Tom
Lane. Fixes bug #17828. Backpatch to v14 where async execution was
introduced, but master gets a different fix.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17828-122da8cba23236be@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/472235.1678387869@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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 looping around after finding that the set-returning function
returned zero rows for the current input tuple, ExecProjectSet
neglected to reset either of the two memory contexts it's
responsible for cleaning out. Typically this wouldn't cause much
problem, because once the SRF does return at least one row, the
contexts would get reset on the next call. However, if the SRF
returns no rows for many input tuples in succession, quite a lot
of memory could be transiently consumed.
To fix, make sure we reset both contexts while looping around.
Per bug #18172 from Sergei Kornilov. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18172-9b8c5fc1d676ded3@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This could only affect HASH partitioned tables with at least 2 partition
key columns.
If partition pruning was delayed until execution and the query contained
an IS NULL qual on one of the partitioned keys, and some subsequent
partitioned key was being compared to a non-Const, then this could result
in a crash due to the incorrect keyno being used to calculate the
stateidx for the expression evaluation code.
Here we fix this by properly skipping partitioned keys which have a
nullkey set. Effectively, this must be the same as what's going on
inside perform_pruning_base_step().
Sergei Glukhov also provided a patch, but that's not what's being used
here.
Reported-by: Sergei Glukhov
Reviewed-by: tender wang, Sergei Glukhov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d05b26fa-af54-27e1-f693-6c31590802fa@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch-through: 11, where runtime partition pruning was added.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Ensure we switch to the per-tuple memory context to prevent any memory
leaks of detoasted Datums in MemoizeHash_hash() and MemoizeHash_equal().
Reported-by: Orlov Aleksej
Author: Orlov Aleksej, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/83281eed63c74e4f940317186372abfd%40cft.ru
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was added
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, when selecting an usable index for update/delete for the
REPLICA IDENTITY FULL table, in IsIndexOnlyExpression(), we used to
check if all index fields are not expressions. However, it was not
necessary, because it is enough to check if only the leftmost index
field is not an expression (and references the remote table column)
and this check has already been done by
RemoteRelContainsLeftMostColumnOnIdx().
This commit removes IsIndexOnlyExpression() and
RemoteRelContainsLeftMostColumnOnIdx() and all checks for usable
indexes for REPLICA IDENTITY FULL tables are now performed by
IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull().
Backpatch this to remain the code consistent.
Reported-by: Peter Smith
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Önder Kalacı
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHut%2BPsGRE5WSsY0jcLHJEoA17MrbP9yy8FxdjC_ZOAACxbt%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 16
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A CaseTestExpr is currently being put into
JsonValueExpr.formatted_expr as placeholder for the result of
evaluating JsonValueExpr.raw_expr, which in turn is evaluated
separately. Though, there's no need for this indirection if
raw_expr itself can be embedded into formatted_expr and evaluated
as part of evaluating the latter, especially as there is no
special reason to evaluate it separately. So this commit makes it
so. As a result, JsonValueExpr.raw_expr no longer needs to be
evaluated in ExecInterpExpr(), eval_const_exprs_mutator() etc. and
is now only used for displaying the original "unformatted"
expression in ruleutils.c. Comments about and the code manipulating
formatted_expr is updated to mention that it is now always set and
is the expression that gives a JsonValueExpr its runtime value.
While at it, this also removes the function makeCaseTestExpr(),
because the code in makeJsonConstructorExpr() looks more readable
without it IMO and isn't used by anyone else either.
Finally, a note is added in the comment above CaseTestExpr's
definition that JsonConstructorExpr is also using it.
Backpatched to 16 from the development branch to keep the code in
sync across branches.
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqE4XTdfb1nW=Ojoy_tQSRhYt-q_kb6i5d4xcKyrLC1Nbg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit 89e46da5e allowed REPLICA IDENTITY FULL tables to use an index
on the subscriber during apply of update/delete. This commit clarifies
in the documentation that the leftmost field of candidate indexes must
be a column (not an expression) that references the published relation
column.
The source code comments are also updated accordingly.
Reviewed-by: Peter Smith, Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAD21AoDJjffEvUFKXT27Q5U8-UU9JHv4rrJ9Ke8Zkc5UPWHLvA@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 16
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The Incremental Sort had a couple issues, resulting in leaking memory
during rescans, possibly triggering OOM. The code had a couple of
related flaws:
1. During rescans, the sort states were reset but then also set to NULL
(despite the comment saying otherwise). ExecIncrementalSort then
sees NULL and initializes a new sort state, leaking the memory used
by the old one.
2. Initializing the sort state also automatically rebuilt the info about
presorted keys, leaking the already initialized info. presorted_keys
was also unnecessarily reset to NULL.
Patch by James Coleman, based on patches by Laurenz Albe and Tom Lane.
Backpatch to 13, where Incremental Sort was introduced.
Author: James Coleman, Laurenz Albe, Tom Lane
Reported-by: Laurenz Albe, Zu-Ming Jiang
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b2bd02dff61af15e3526293e2771f874cf2a3be7.camel%40cybertec.at
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/db03c582-086d-e7cd-d4a1-3bc722f81765%40inf.ethz.ch
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If the given composite datum is toasted out-of-line,
DatumGetHeapTupleHeader will perform database accesses to detoast it.
That can invalidate the result of get_cached_rowtype, as documented
(perhaps not plainly enough) in that function's API spec; which leads
to strange errors or crashes when we try to use the TupleDesc to read
the tuple. In short then, trying to update a field of a composite
column could fail intermittently if the overall column value is wide
enough to require toasting.
We can fix the bug at no cost by just changing the order of
operations, since we don't need the TupleDesc until after detoasting.
(Other callers of get_cached_rowtype appear to get this right already,
so there's only one bug.)
Note that the added regression test case reveals this bug reliably
only with debug_discard_caches/CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS.
Per bug #17994 from Alexander Lakhin. Sadly, this patch does not fix
the missing-values issue revealed in the bug discussion; we'll need
some more work to cover that.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17994-5c7100b51b4790e9@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Run pgindent and pgperltidy. It seems we're still some ways
away from all committers doing this automatically. Now that
we have a buildfarm animal that will whine about poorly-indented
code, we'll try to keep the tree more tidy.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3156045.1687208823@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
47bb9db75 modified the ApplyRetrieveRule()'s conversion of a view's
original RTE_RELATION entry into an RTE_SUBQUERY one to retain relid,
rellockmode, and perminfoindex so that the executor can lock the view
and check its permissions. It seems better to also retain
relkind for cross-checking that the exception of an
RTE_SUBQUERY entry being allowed to carry relation details only
applies to views, so do so.
Bump catversion because this changes the output format of
RTE_SUBQUERY RTEs.
Suggested-by: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Reviewed-by: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3953179e-9540-e5d1-a743-4bef368785b0%40pgmasters.net
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit fc22b6623b (generated columns) replaced ExecGetUpdatedCols() with
ExecGetAllUpdatedCols() in a couple places handling UPDATE (triggers and
lock mode). However, ExecGetUpdatedCols() did exec_rt_fetch() while
ExecGetAllUpdatedCols() also allocates memory through bms_union()
without paying attention to the memory context and happened to use the
long-lived ExecutorState, leaking the memory until the end of the query.
The amount of leaked memory is proportional to the number of (updated)
attributes, types of UPDATE triggers, and the number of processed rows
(which for UPDATE ... FROM ... may be much higher than updated rows).
Fixed by switching to the per-tuple context in GetAllUpdatedColumns().
This is fine for all in-core callers, but external callers may need to
copy the result. But we're not aware of any such callers.
Note the issue was introduced by fc22b6623b, but the macros were later
renamed by f50e888990.
Backpatch to 12, where the issue was introduced.
Reported-by: Tomas Vondra
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Tom Lane, Jakub Wartak
Backpatch-through: 12
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/222a3442-7f7d-246c-ed9b-a76209d19239@enterprisedb.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Should a hash join exceed memory limit, the hashtable is split up into
multiple batches. The number of batches is doubled each time a given
batch is determined not to fit in memory. Each batch file is allocated
with a block-sized buffer for buffering tuples and parallel hash join
has additional sharedtuplestore accessor buffers.
In some pathological cases requiring a lot of batches, often with skewed
data, bad stats, or very large datasets, users can run out-of-memory
solely from the memory overhead of all the batch files' buffers.
Batch files were allocated in the ExecutorState memory context, making
it very hard to identify when this batch explosion was the source of an
OOM. This commit allocates the batch files in a dedicated memory
context, making it easier to identify the cause of an OOM and work to
avoid it.
Based on initial draft by Tomas Vondra, with significant reworks and
improvements by Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais.
Author: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
Author: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190421114618.z3mpgmimc3rmubi4@development
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230504193006.1b5b9622%40karst#273020ff4061fc7a2fbb1ba96b281f17
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Add a high level description of our implementation of the hybrid hash
join algorithm to the block comment in nodeHashjoin.c.
Author: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230516160051.4267a800%40karst
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is equivalent to a revert of f193883 and fb32748, with the addition
that the declaration of the SQLValueFunction node needs to gain a couple
of node_attr for query jumbling. The performance impact of removing the
function call inlining is proving to be too huge for some workloads
where these are used. A worst-case test case of involving only simple
SELECT queries with a SQL keyword is proving to lead to a reduction of
10% in TPS via pgbench and prepared queries on a high-end machine.
None of the tests I ran back for this set of changes saw such a huge
gap, but Alexander Lakhin and Andres Freund have found that this can be
noticeable. Keeping the older performance would mean to do more
inlining in the executor when using COERCE_SQL_SYNTAX for a function
expression, similarly to what SQLValueFunction does. This requires more
redesign work and there is little time until 16beta1 is released, so for
now reverting the change is the best way forward, bringing back the
previous performance.
Bump catalog version.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b32bed1b-0746-9b20-1472-4bdc9ca66d52@gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The problem that these messages protect against can only occur because
a corrupted hash spill file was written, i.e., a Postgres bug. There's
no reason to have them as translatable.
Backpatch to 15, where these messages were changed by commit c4649cce39a4.
Reviewed-by: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230510175407.dwa5v477pw62ikyx@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
RI_Initial_Check was setting up a list of RTEPermissionInfo for
ExecCheckPermissions() wrong, and the problem is subtle enough that it
doesn't have any immediate effect in core code. However, if an
extension is using the ExecutorCheckPerms_hook, then it would get the
wrong parameters and perhaps arrive at a wrong conclusion, or outright
malfunction. Fix by constructing that list and the RTE list more
honestly.
We also add an assertion check to verify that these lists match. This
new assertion would have caught this bug.
Co-authored-by: Олег Целебровский (Oleg Tselebrovskii) <o.tselebrovskiy@postgrespro.ru>
Co-authored-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3722b7a2cbe27a1796ee40824bd86dd1@postgrespro.ru
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit ec386948948c and its fixup 589bb816499e.
This change was intended to support query planning avoiding acquisition
of locks on partitions that were going to be pruned; however, the
overall project took a different direction at [1] and this bit is no
longer needed. Put things back the way they were as agreed in [2], to
avoid unnecessary complexity.
Discussion: [1] https://postgr.es/m/4191508.1674157166@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: [2] https://postgr.es/m/20230502175409.kcoirxczpdha26wt@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The changes done in this commit impact comments with no direct
user-visible changes, with fixes for incorrect function, variable or
structure names.
Author: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e8c38840-596a-83d6-bd8d-cebc51111572@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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The name of this function suggests that it ought to reparent R/W
expanded objects to be children of the persistent aggcontext, instead
of copying them. In fact it does no such thing, and if you try to
make it do so you will see multiple regression failures. Rename it
to the less-misleading ExecAggCopyTransValue, and add commentary
about why that attractive-sounding optimization won't work. Also
adjust comments at call sites, some of which were describing logic
that has since been moved into ExecAggCopyTransValue.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3004282.1681930251@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The finalfunc might return a read-write expanded object. If we
de-duplicate multiple call sites for the aggregate, any function(s)
receiving the aggregate result earlier could alter or destroy the
value that reaches the ones called later. This is a brown-paper-bag
bug in commit 42b746d4c, because we actually considered the need
for read-only-ness but failed to realize that it applied to the case
with a finalfunc as well as the case without.
Per report from Justin Pryzby. New error in HEAD,
no need for back-patch.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZDm5TuKsh3tzoEjz@telsasoft.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit 3e310d837 taught isAssignmentIndirectionExpr() to look through
CoerceToDomain nodes. That's not sufficient, because since commit
04fe805a1 it's been possible for the planner to simplify
CoerceToDomain to RelabelType when the domain has no constraints
to enforce. So we need to look through RelabelType too.
Per bug #17897 from Alexander Lakhin. Although 3e310d837 was
back-patched to v11, it seems sufficient to apply this change
to v12 and later, since 04fe805a1 came in in v12.
Dmitry Dolgov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17897-4216c546c3874044@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Hash join tuples reuse the HOT status bit to indicate match status
during hash join execution. Correct reuse requires clearing the bit in
all tuples. Serial hash join and parallel multi-batch hash join do so
upon inserting the tuple into the hashtable. Single batch parallel hash
join and batch 0 of unexpected multi-batch hash joins forgot to do this.
It hadn't come up before because hashtable tuple match bits are only
used for right and full outer joins and parallel ROJ and FOJ were
unsupported. 11c2d6fdf5 introduced support for parallel ROJ/FOJ but
neglected to ensure the match bits were reset.
Author: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/flat/CAMbWs48Nde1Mv%3DBJv6_vXmRKHMuHZm2Q_g4F6Z3_pn%2B3EV6BGQ%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We can't assert that we're the only process attached to a barrier after
BarrierArriveAndDetachExceptLast(). Although that'll be true almost
always, a late-starting parallel worker can attach very briefly (that
is, immediately detach after checking the phase) right at that moment.
BarrierArriveAndDetachExceptLast() already contains an assertion like
that, but it holds a spinlock preventing the race. This thinko caused a
one-off failure on build farm animal chimaera.
Diagnosed-by: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3590249.1680971629@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
pg_stat_statements relies on EState->es_processed to count the number of
rows processed by ExecutorRun(). This proves to be a problem under the
extended query protocol when the result of a query is fetched through
more than one call of ExecutorRun(), as es_processed is reset each time
ExecutorRun() is called. This causes pg_stat_statements to report the
number of rows calculated in the last execute fetch, rather than the
global sum of all the rows processed.
As pquery.c tells, this is a problem when a portal does not use
holdStore. For example, DMLs with RETURNING would report a correct
tuple count as these do one execution cycle when the query is first
executed to fill in the portal's store with one ExecutorRun(), feeding
on the portal's store for each follow-up execute fetch depending on the
fetch size requested by the client.
The fix proposed for this issue is simple with the addition of an extra
counter in EState that's preserved across multiple ExecutorRun() calls,
incremented with the value calculated in es_processed. This approach is
not back-patchable, unfortunately.
Note that libpq does not currently give any way to control the fetch
size when using the extended v3 protocol, meaning that in-core testing
is not possible yet. This issue can be easily verified with the JDBC
driver, though, with *autocommit disabled*. Hence, having in-core tests
requires more features, left for future discussion:
- At least two new libpq routines splitting PQsendQueryGuts(), one for
the bind/describe and a second for a series of execute fetches with a
custom fetch size, likely in a fashion similar to what JDBC does.
- A psql meta-command for the execute phase. This part is not strictly
mandatory, still it could be handy.
Reported-by: Andrew Dunstan (original discovery by Simon Siggs)
Author: Sami Imseih
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/EBE6C507-9EB6-4142-9E4D-38B1673363A7@amazon.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/c90890e7-9c89-c34f-d3c5-d5c763a34bd8@dunslane.net
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Merge and hash joins can support antijoin with the non-nullable input
on the right, using very simple combinations of their existing logic
for right join and anti join. This gives the planner more freedom
about how to order the join. It's particularly useful for hash join,
since we may now have the option to hash the smaller table instead
of the larger.
Richard Guo, reviewed by Ronan Dunklau and myself
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48xh9hMzXzSy3VaPzGAz+fkxXXTUbCLohX1_L8THFRm2Q@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230323003003.plgaxjqahjgkuxrk%40awork3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
| |
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230323003003.plgaxjqahjgkuxrk%40awork3.anarazel.de
|
