| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Switch to 2.1 version of pg_bsd_indent. This formats
multiline function declarations "correctly", that is with
additional lines of parameter declarations indented to match
where the first line's left parenthesis is.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0P3FeTXRcU5B2W3jv3PgRVZ-kGUXLGfd42FFhUROO3ug@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is still using the 2.0 version of pg_bsd_indent.
I thought it would be good to commit this separately,
so as to document the differences between 2.0 and 2.1 behavior.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16296.1558103386@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, the planner created RangeTblEntry and RelOptInfo structs
for every partition of a partitioned table, even though many of them
might later be deemed uninteresting thanks to partition pruning logic.
This incurred significant overhead when there are many partitions.
Arrange to postpone creation of these data structures until after
we've processed the query enough to identify restriction quals for
the partitioned table, and then apply partition pruning before not
after creation of each partition's data structures. In this way
we need not open the partition relations at all for partitions that
the planner has no real interest in.
For queries that can be proven at plan time to access only a small
number of partitions, this patch improves the practical maximum
number of partitions from under 100 to perhaps a few thousand.
Amit Langote, reviewed at various times by Dilip Kumar, Jesper Pedersen,
Yoshikazu Imai, and David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9d7c5112-cb99-6a47-d3be-cf1ee6862a1d@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is an SQL-standard feature that allows creating columns that are
computed from expressions rather than assigned, similar to a view or
materialized view but on a column basis.
This implements one kind of generated column: stored (computed on
write). Another kind, virtual (computed on read), is planned for the
future, and some room is left for it.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b151f851-4019-bdb1-699e-ebab07d2f40a@2ndquadrant.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We've been creating duplicate RTEs for partitioned tables just
because we do so for regular inheritance parent tables. But unlike
regular-inheritance parents which are themselves regular tables
and thus need to be scanned, partitioned tables don't need the
extra RTE.
This makes the conditions for building a child RTE the same as those
for building an AppendRelInfo, allowing minor simplification in
expand_single_inheritance_child. Since the planner's actual processing
is driven off the AppendRelInfo list, nothing much changes beyond that,
we just have one fewer useless RTE entry.
Amit Langote, reviewed and hacked a bit by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9d7c5112-cb99-6a47-d3be-cf1ee6862a1d@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We still require AccessExclusiveLock on the partition itself, because
otherwise an insert that violates the newly-imposed partition
constraint could be in progress at the same time that we're changing
that constraint; only the lock level on the parent relation is
weakened.
To make this safe, we have to cope with (at least) three separate
problems. First, relevant DDL might commit while we're in the process
of building a PartitionDesc. If so, find_inheritance_children() might
see a new partition while the RELOID system cache still has the old
partition bound cached, and even before invalidation messages have
been queued. To fix that, if we see that the pg_class tuple seems to
be missing or to have a null relpartbound, refetch the value directly
from the table. We can't get the wrong value, because DETACH PARTITION
still requires AccessExclusiveLock throughout; if we ever want to
change that, this will need more thought. In testing, I found it quite
difficult to hit even the null-relpartbound case; the race condition
is extremely tight, but the theoretical risk is there.
Second, successive calls to RelationGetPartitionDesc might not return
the same answer. The query planner will get confused if lookup up the
PartitionDesc for a particular relation does not return a consistent
answer for the entire duration of query planning. Likewise, query
execution will get confused if the same relation seems to have a
different PartitionDesc at different times. Invent a new
PartitionDirectory concept and use it to ensure consistency. This
ensures that a single invocation of either the planner or the executor
sees the same view of the PartitionDesc from beginning to end, but it
does not guarantee that the planner and the executor see the same
view. Since this allows pointers to old PartitionDesc entries to
survive even after a relcache rebuild, also postpone removing the old
PartitionDesc entry until we're certain no one is using it.
For the most part, it seems to be OK for the planner and executor to
have different views of the PartitionDesc, because the executor will
just ignore any concurrently added partitions which were unknown at
plan time; those partitions won't be part of the inheritance
expansion, but invalidation messages will trigger replanning at some
point. Normally, this happens by the time the very next command is
executed, but if the next command acquires no locks and executes a
prepared query, it can manage not to notice until a new transaction is
started. We might want to tighten that up, but it's material for a
separate patch. There would still be a small window where a query
that started just after an ATTACH PARTITION command committed might
fail to notice its results -- but only if the command starts before
the commit has been acknowledged to the user. All in all, the warts
here around serializability seem small enough to be worth accepting
for the considerable advantage of being able to add partitions without
a full table lock.
Although in general the consequences of new partitions showing up
between planning and execution are limited to the query not noticing
the new partitions, run-time partition pruning will get confused in
that case, so that's the third problem that this patch fixes.
Run-time partition pruning assumes that indexes into the PartitionDesc
are stable between planning and execution. So, add code so that if
new partitions are added between plan time and execution time, the
indexes stored in the subplan_map[] and subpart_map[] arrays within
the plan's PartitionedRelPruneInfo get adjusted accordingly. There
does not seem to be a simple way to generalize this scheme to cope
with partitions that are removed, mostly because they could then get
added back again with different bounds, but it works OK for added
partitions.
This code does not try to ensure that every backend participating in
a parallel query sees the same view of the PartitionDesc. That
currently doesn't matter, because we never pass PartitionDesc
indexes between backends. Each backend will ignore the concurrently
added partitions which it notices, and it doesn't matter if different
backends are ignoring different sets of concurrently added partitions.
If in the future that matters, for example because we allow writes in
parallel query and want all participants to do tuple routing to the same
set of partitions, the PartitionDirectory concept could be improved to
share PartitionDescs across backends. There is a draft patch to
serialize and restore PartitionDescs on the thread where this patch
was discussed, which may be a useful place to start.
Patch by me. Thanks to Alvaro Herrera, David Rowley, Simon Riggs,
Amit Langote, and Michael Paquier for discussion, and to Alvaro
Herrera for some review.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmobt2upbSocvvDej3yzokd7AkiT+PvgFH+a9-5VV1oJNSQ@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZE0r9-cyA-aY6f8WFEROaDLLL7Vf81kZ8MtFCkxpeQSw@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoY13KQZF-=HNTrt9UYWYx3_oYOQpu9ioNT49jGgiDpUEA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, this function acquired locks in the order using
find_all_inheritors(), which locks the children of each table that it
processes in ascending OID order, and which processes the inheritance
hierarchy as a whole in a breadth-first fashion. Now, it processes
the inheritance hierarchy in a depth-first fashion, and at each level
it proceeds in the order in which tables appear in the PartitionDesc.
If table inheritance rather than table partitioning is used, the old
order is preserved.
This change moves the locking of any given partition much closer to
the code that actually expands that partition. This seems essential
if we ever want to allow concurrent DDL to add or remove partitions,
because if the set of partitions can change, we must use the same data
to decide which partitions to lock as we do to decide which partitions
to expand; otherwise, we might expand a partition that we haven't
locked. It should hopefully also facilitate efforts to postpone
inheritance expansion or locking for performance reasons, because
there's really no way to postpone locking some partitions if
we're blindly locking them all using find_all_inheritors().
The only downside of this change which is known to me is that it
further deviates from the principle that we should always lock the
inheritance hierarchy in find_all_inheritors() order to avoid deadlock
risk. However, we've already crossed that bridge in commit
9eefba181f7782d27d85d7e94e6028371e7ab2d7 and there are futher patches
pending that make similar changes, so this isn't really giving up
anything that we haven't surrendered already -- and it seems entirely
worth it, given the performance benefits some of those changes seem
likely to bring.
Patch by me; thanks to David Rowley for discussion of these issues.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f_eEYVEq5tM8sm1k-HOwG0AyCPwX54XG9x4w0zy_N4Q_Q@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZUwPf_uanjF==gTGBMJrn8uCq52XYvAEorNkLrUdoawg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is similar in spirit to the existing partbounds.c file in the
same directory, except that there's a lot less code in the new file
created by this commit. Pending work in this area proposes to add a
bunch more code related to PartitionDescs, though, and this will give
us a good place to put it.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZUwPf_uanjF==gTGBMJrn8uCq52XYvAEorNkLrUdoawg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190111000539.xbv7s6w7ilcvm7dp@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A lot of files only included heapam.h for relation_open, heap_open etc
- replace the heapam.h include in those files with the narrower
header.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190111000539.xbv7s6w7ilcvm7dp@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It seems modules are better defined like this instead of the original
split.
Per complaints from David Rowley as well as Amit Langote's self review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f988rsyhwvLgfT-y1UCYUfXDOv67ENQk=v24OxhsZOzZw@mail.gmail.com
|
|
|
This commit moves expand_inherited_tables and underlings from
optimizer/prep/prepunionc.c to optimizer/utils/inherit.c.
Also, all of the AppendRelInfo-based expression manipulation routines
are moved to optimizer/utils/appendinfo.c.
No functional code changes. One exception is the introduction of
make_append_rel_info, but that's still just moving around code.
Also, stop including <limits.h> in prepunion.c, which no longer needs
it since 3fc6e2d7f5b6. I (Álvaro) noticed this because Amit was copying
that to inherit.c, which likewise doesn't need it.
Author: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3be67028-a00a-502c-199a-da00eec8fb6e@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
