| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| ... | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Rescanning a GatherMerge led to leaking some memory in the executor's
query-lifespan context, because most of the node's working data structures
were simply abandoned and rebuilt from scratch. In practice, this might
never amount to much, given the cost of relaunching worker processes ---
but it's still pretty messy, so let's fix it.
We can rearrange things so that the tuple arrays are simply cleared and
reused, and we don't need to rebuild the TupleTableSlots either, just
clear them. One small complication is that because we might get a
different number of workers on each iteration, we can't keep the old
convention that the leader's gm_slots[] entry is the last one; the leader
might clobber a TupleTableSlot that we need for a worker in a future
iteration. Hence, adjust the logic so that the leader has slot 0 always,
while the active workers have slots 1..n.
Back-patch to v10 to keep all the existing versions of nodeGatherMerge.c
in sync --- because of the renumbering of the slots, there would otherwise
be a very large risk that any future backpatches in this module would
introduce bugs.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8670.1504192177@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, we expanded the inheritance hierarchy in the order in
which find_all_inheritors had locked the tables, but that turns out
to block quite a bit of useful optimization. For example, a
partition-wise join can't count on two tables with matching bounds
to get expanded in the same order.
Where possible, this change results in expanding partitioned tables in
*bound* order. Bound order isn't well-defined for a list-partitioned
table with a null-accepting partition or for a list-partitioned table
where the bounds for a single partition are interleaved with other
partitions. However, when expansion in bound order is possible, it
opens up further opportunities for optimization, such as
strength-reducing MergeAppend to Append when the expansion order
matches the desired sort order.
Patch by me, with cosmetic revisions by Ashutosh Bapat.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZrKj7kEzcMSum3aXV4eyvvbh9WD=c6m=002WMheDyE3A@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The logic around shm_mq_detach was a few bricks shy of a load, because
(contrary to the comments for shm_mq_attach) all it did was update the
shared shm_mq state. That left us leaking a bit of process-local
memory, but much worse, the on_dsm_detach callback for shm_mq_detach
was still armed. That means that whenever we ultimately detach from
the DSM segment, we'd run shm_mq_detach again for already-detached,
possibly long-dead queues. This accidentally fails to fail today,
because we only ever re-use a shm_mq's memory for another shm_mq, and
multiple detach attempts on the last such shm_mq are fairly harmless.
But it's gonna bite us someday, so let's clean it up.
To do that, change shm_mq_detach's API so it takes a shm_mq_handle
not the underlying shm_mq. This makes the callers simpler in most
cases anyway. Also fix a few places in parallel.c that were just
pfree'ing the handle structs rather than doing proper cleanup.
Back-patch to v10 because of the risk that the revenant shm_mq_detach
callbacks would cause a live bug sometime. Since this is an API
change, it's too late to do it in 9.6. (We could make a variant
patch that preserves API, but I'm not excited enough to do that.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8670.1504192177@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Comment the fields of GatherMergeState, and organize them a bit more
sensibly. Comment GMReaderTupleBuffer more usefully too. Improve
assorted other comments that were obsolete or just not very good English.
Get rid of the use of a GMReaderTupleBuffer for the leader process;
that was confusing, since only the "done" field was used, and that
in a way redundant with need_to_scan_locally.
In gather_merge_init, avoid calling load_tuple_array for
already-known-exhausted workers. I'm not sure if there's a live bug there,
but the case is unlikely to be well tested due to timing considerations.
Remove some useless code, such as duplicating the tts_isempty test done by
TupIsNull.
Remove useless initialization of ps.qual, replacing that with an assertion
that we have no qual to check. (If we did, the code would fail to check
it.)
Avoid applying heap_copytuple to a null tuple. While that fails to crash,
it's confusing and it makes the code less legible not more so IMO.
Propagate a couple of these changes into nodeGather.c, as well.
Back-patch to v10, partly because of the possibility that the
gather_merge_init change is fixing a live bug, but mostly to keep
the branches in sync to ease future bug fixes.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, the parallel executor logic did reinitialization of shared
state within the ExecReScan code for parallel-aware scan nodes. This is
problematic, because it means that the ExecReScan call has to occur
synchronously (ie, during the parent Gather node's ReScan call). That is
swimming very much against the tide so far as the ExecReScan machinery is
concerned; the fact that it works at all today depends on a lot of fragile
assumptions, such as that no plan node between Gather and a parallel-aware
scan node is parameterized. Another objection is that because ExecReScan
might be called in workers as well as the leader, hacky extra tests are
needed in some places to prevent unwanted shared-state resets.
Hence, let's separate this code into two functions, a ReInitializeDSM
call and the ReScan call proper. ReInitializeDSM is called only in
the leader and is guaranteed to run before we start new workers.
ReScan is returned to its traditional function of resetting only local
state, which means that ExecReScan's usual habits of delaying or
eliminating child rescan calls are safe again.
As with the preceding commit 7df2c1f8d, it doesn't seem to be necessary
to make these changes in 9.6, which is a good thing because the FDW and
CustomScan APIs are impacted.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The ExecReScan machinery contains various optimizations for postponing
or skipping rescans of plan subtrees; for example a HashAgg node may
conclude that it can re-use the table it built before, instead of
re-reading its input subtree. But that is wrong if the input contains
a parallel-aware table scan node, since the portion of the table scanned
by the leader process is likely to vary from one rescan to the next.
This explains the timing-dependent buildfarm failures we saw after
commit a2b70c89c.
The established mechanism for showing that a plan node's output is
potentially variable is to mark it as depending on some runtime Param.
Hence, to fix this, invent a dummy Param (one that has a PARAM_EXEC
parameter number, but carries no actual value) associated with each Gather
or GatherMerge node, mark parallel-aware nodes below that node as dependent
on that Param, and arrange for ExecReScanGather[Merge] to flag that Param
as changed whenever the Gather[Merge] node is rescanned.
This solution breaks an undocumented assumption made by the parallel
executor logic, namely that all rescans of nodes below a Gather[Merge]
will happen synchronously during the ReScan of the top node itself.
But that's fundamentally contrary to the design of the ExecReScan code,
and so was doomed to fail someday anyway (even if you want to argue
that the bug being fixed here wasn't a failure of that assumption).
A follow-on patch will address that issue. In the meantime, the worst
that's expected to happen is that given very bad timing luck, the leader
might have to do all the work during a rescan, because workers think
they have nothing to do, if they are able to start up before the eventual
ReScan of the leader's parallel-aware table scan node has reset the
shared scan state.
Although this problem exists in 9.6, there does not seem to be any way
for it to manifest there. Without GatherMerge, it seems that a plan tree
that has a rescan-short-circuiting node below Gather will always also
have one above it that will short-circuit in the same cases, preventing
the Gather from being rescanned. Hence we won't take the risk of
back-patching this change into 9.6. But v10 needs it.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Up until now, when parallel query was used, no details about the
sort method or space used by the workers were available; details
were shown only for any sorting done by the leader. Fix that.
Commit 1177ab1dabf72bafee8f19d904cee3a299f25892 forced the test case
added by commit 1f6d515a67ec98194c23a5db25660856c9aab944 to run
without parallelism; now that we have this infrastructure, allow
that again, with a little tweaking to make it pass with and without
force_parallel_mode.
Robert Haas and Tom Lane
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa2VBZW6S8AAXfhpHczb=Rf6RqQ2br+zJvEgwJ0uoD_tQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If we only need, say, 10 tuples in total, then we certainly don't need
more than 10 tuples from any single process. Pushing down the limit
lets workers exit early when possible. For Gather Merge, there is
an additional benefit: a Sort immediately below the Gather Merge can
be done as a bounded sort if there is an applicable limit.
Robert Haas and Tom Lane
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYa3QKKrLj5rX7UvGqhH73G1Li4B-EKxrmASaca2tFu9Q@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Minor improvements for commit 1f6d515a6. We do not need the (rather
expensive) test for SRFs in the targetlist, because since v10 any
such SRFs would appear in separate ProjectSet nodes. Also, make the
code look more like the existing cases by turning it into a simple
recursion --- the argument that there might be some performance
benefit to contorting the code seems unfounded to me, especially since
any good compiler should turn the tail-recursion into iteration anyway.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CADE5jYLuugnEEUsyW6Q_4mZFYTxHxaVCQmGAsF0yiY8ZDggi-w@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit 8c0d7bafad36434cb08ac2c78e69ae72c194ca20 introduced dshash with hash
and compare functions like DynaHash's, and also variants that take a user
data pointer instead of size. Simplify the interface by merging them into
a single pair of function pointer types that take both size and a user data
pointer.
Since it is anticipated that memcmp and tag_hash behavior will be a common
requirement, provide wrapper functions dshash_memcmp and dshash_memhash that
conform to the new function types.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170823054644.efuzftxjpfi6wwqs%40alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Tidy-up for commit 8c0d7bafad36434cb08ac2c78e69ae72c194ca20, based on a
complaint from Andres Freund.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170823054644.efuzftxjpfi6wwqs%40alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit 16be2fd100199bdf284becfcee02c5eb20d8a11d added DSA_ALLOC_HUGE,
DSA_ALLOC_ZERO and DSA_ALLOC_NO_OOM which have the same numerical
values and meanings as the similarly named MCXT_... macros. In one
place we accidentally used MCXT_ALLOC_NO_OOM when DSA_ALLOC_NO_OOM is
wanted, so tidy that up.
Author: Thomas Munro
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2AimHxVkkxnMfQvbZMkXy0uKbVa0-D38c5-qwrCm4CMQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 10, where dsa was introduced.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Author: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This does not use the normal plural handling, because no numbers appear
in the actual message.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Clarify/correct some error messages, fix up some code comments that
confused SASL and SCRAM, and other minor fixes. No changes in
functionality.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This was erroneously removed in
55a70a023c3daefca9bbd68bfbe6862af10ab479.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Add general purpose chaining hash tables for DSA memory. Unlike
DynaHash in shared memory mode, these hash tables can grow as
required, and cope with being mapped into different addresses in
different backends.
There is a wide range of potential users for such a hash table, though
it's very likely the interface will need to evolve as we come to
understand the needs of different kinds of users. E.g support for
iterators and incremental resizing is planned for later commits and
the details of the callback signatures are likely to change.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: John Gorman, Andres Freund, Dilip Kumar, Robert Haas
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=3d8o8XdVwYT6O=bHKsKAM2pu2D6sV1S_=4d+jStVCE7w@mail.gmail.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, tuple descriptors were stored in chains keyed by a fixed size
array of OIDs. That meant there were effectively two levels of collision
chain -- one inside and one outside the hash table. Instead, let dynahash.c
look after conflicts for us by supplying a proper hash and equal function
pair.
This is a nice cleanup on its own, but also simplifies followup
changes allowing blessed TupleDescs to be shared between backends
participating in parallel query.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D34GVhOL%2BarUx56yx7OPk7%3DqpGsv3CpO54feqjAwQKm5g%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Users can still create them themselves. Instead, document Unicode TR 35
collation options for ICU, so users can create all this themselves.
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Install language+region combinations even if they are not distinct from
the language's base locale. This gives better long-term stability of
the set of predefined locales and makes the predefined locales less
implementation-dependent and more practical for users.
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Douglas Doole, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat and by me. Minor formatting
change by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CADE5jYLuugnEEUsyW6Q_4mZFYTxHxaVCQmGAsF0yiY8ZDggi-w@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Periodically while the server is running, and at shutdown, write out a
list of blocks in shared buffers. When the server reaches consistency
-- unfortunatey, we can't do it before that point without breaking
things -- reload those blocks into any still-unused shared buffers.
Mithun Cy and Robert Haas, reviewed and tested by Beena Emerson,
Amit Kapila, Jim Nasby, and Rafia Sabih.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAD__OugubOs1Vy7kgF6xTjmEqTR4CrGAv8w+ZbaY_+MZeitukw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
It appeared in a conditional that excludes AIX, Cygwin and MinGW. Give
ICU support a chance to work on those platforms. Back-patch to v10,
where ICU support was introduced.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
TupleDesc's attributes were already stored in contiguous memory after the
struct. Go one step further and get rid of the array of pointers to
attributes so that they can be stored in shared memory mapped at different
addresses in each backend. This won't work for TupleDescs with contraints
and defaults, since those point to other objects, but for many purposes
only attributes are needed.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
It would create the comment referring to the keyword-less parent
locale. This was broken in ddb5fdc068635d003a0d1c303cb109d1cb3ebeb1.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead, lock them in the caller using find_all_inheritors so that
they get locked in the standard order, minimizing deadlock risks.
Also in RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo, avoid opening tables which
are not partitioned; there's no need.
Amit Langote, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat and Amit Khandekar
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/91b36fa1-c197-b72f-ca6e-56c593bae68c@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Move some logic that is currently in ATExecAttachPartition to
separate functions to facilitate future code reuse.
Ashutosh Bapat and Jeevan Ladhe
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmobbnamyvii0pRdg9pp_jLHSUvq7u5SiRrVV0tEFFU58Tg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Per discussion with Tom Lane.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/28589.1502902172@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Not surprisingly, since it'd never ever been tested, ExecReScanGatherMerge
didn't work. Fix it, and add a regression test case to exercise it.
Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Per pademelon.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As Andres pointed out, pg_atomic_init_u64 must be used to initialize an
atomic variable, before it can be accessed with the actual atomic ops.
Trying to use pg_atomic_write_u64 on an uninitialized variable leads to a
failure with the fallback implementation that uses a spinlock.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170816191346.d3ke5tpshhco4bnd%40alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, if we had to estimate the number of distinct values in a
VALUES column, we fell back on the default behavior used whenever we lack
statistics, which effectively is that there are Min(# of entries, 200)
distinct values. This can be very badly off with a large VALUES list,
as noted by Jeff Janes.
We could consider actually running an ANALYZE-like scan on the VALUES,
but that seems unduly expensive, and anyway it could not deliver reliable
info if the entries are not all constants. What seems like a better choice
is to assume that the values are all distinct. This will sometimes be just
as wrong as the old code, but it seems more likely to be more nearly right
in many common cases. Also, it is more consistent with what happens in
some related cases, for example WHERE x = ANY(ARRAY[1,2,3,...,n]) and
WHERE x = ANY(VALUES (1),(2),(3),...,(n)) now are estimated similarly.
This was discussed some time ago, but consensus was it'd be better
to slip it in at the start of a development cycle not near the end.
(It should've gone into v10, really, but I forgot about it.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMkU=1xHkyPa8VQgGcCNg3RMFFvVxUdOpus1gKcFuvVi0w6Acg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, if you passed a non-aligned size to shm_toc_create(), the
memory returned by shm_toc_allocate() would be similarly non-aligned.
This was exposed by commit 3cda10f41b, which allocated structs containing
a pg_atomic_uint64 field with shm_toc_allocate(). On systems with
MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF = 4, such structs still need to be 8-bytes aligned, but
the memory returned by shm_toc_allocate() was only 4-bytes aligned.
It's quite bogus that we abuse BUFFERALIGN to align the structs for
pg_atomic_uint64. It doesn't really have anything to do with buffers. But
that's a separate issue.
This ought to fix the buildfarm failures on 32-bit x86 systems.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7e0a73a5-0df9-1859-b8ae-9acf122dc38d@iki.fi
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
tables.table_type is supposed to be 'FOREIGN' rather than 'FOREIGN
TABLE' according to the SQL standard.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
With a lot of CPUs, the spinlock that protects the current scan location
in a parallel scan can become a bottleneck. Use an atomic fetch-and-add
instruction instead.
David Rowley
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKJS1f9tgsPhqBcoPjv9_KUPZvTLCZ4jy%3DB%3DbhqgaKn7cYzm-w@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Since commit 40dae7ec53, which changed the way b-tree page splitting
works, there has been no difference in the handling of root, and non-root
split WAL records. We don't need to distinguish them anymore
If you're worried about the loss of debugging information, note that
usually a root split record will normally be followed by a WAL record to
create the new root page. The root page will also have the BTP_ROOT flag
set on the page itself, and there is a pointer to it from the metapage.
Author: Aleksander Alekseev
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170406122116.GA11081@e733.localdomain
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Change to appendStringInfoChar() or appendStringInfoString() where those
can be used.
Author: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Although not confirmed and probably rare, if the newly allocated memory
is not already zero, this could possibly have caused some problems.
Also reorder the initializations slightly so they match the order of the
struct definition.
Author: Wong, Yi Wen <yiwong@amazon.com>
Reviewed-by: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This appears to have been an omission in the original commit
0d692a0dc9f. All related information_schema views already include
foreign tables.
Reported-by: Nicolas Thauvin <nicolas.thauvin@dalibo.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The initial implementation of autovacuum work-items used a dynamic
shared memory area (DSA). However, it's argued that dynamic shared
memory is not portable enough, so we cannot rely on it being supported
everywhere; at the same time, autovacuum work-items are now a critical
part of the server, so it's not acceptable that they don't work in the
cases where dynamic shared memory is disabled. Therefore, let's fall
back to a simpler implementation of work-items that just uses
autovacuum's main shared memory segment for storage.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobQVbz4K_+RSmiM9HeRKpy3vS5xnbkL95gSEnWijzprKQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Since we currently only have one protocol, this doesn't make much of a
difference other than the error message.
Author: Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Avoid unnecessary locking calls when a subscription is disabled.
Author: Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The executor is capable of splitting buckets during a hash join if
too much memory is being used by a small number of buckets. However,
this only helps if a bucket's population is actually divisible; if
all the hash keys are alike, the tuples still end up in the same
new bucket. This can result in an OOM failure if there are enough
inner keys with identical hash values. The planner's cost estimates
will bias it against choosing a hash join in such situations, but not
by so much that it will never do so. To mitigate the OOM hazard,
explicitly estimate the hash bucket space needed by just the inner
side's most common value, and if that would exceed work_mem then
add disable_cost to the hash cost estimate.
This approach doesn't account for the possibility that two or more
common values would share the same hash value. On the other hand,
work_mem is normally a fairly conservative bound, so that eating
two or more times that much space is probably not going to kill us.
If we have no stats about the inner side, ignore this consideration.
There was some discussion of making a conservative assumption, but that
would effectively result in disabling hash join whenever we lack stats,
which seems like an overreaction given how seldom the problem manifests
in the field.
Per a complaint from David Hinkle. Although this could be viewed
as a bug fix, the lack of similar complaints weighs against back-
patching; indeed we waited for v11 because it seemed already rather
late in the v10 cycle to be making plan choice changes like this one.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/32013.1487271761@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The original code (since 00e6a16d01) was assuming aborting the
transaction in autovacuum launcher was sufficient to release all
resources, but in reality the launcher runs quite a lot of code out of
any transactions. Re-introduce individual cleanup calls to make abort
more robust.
Reported-by: Robert Haas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobQVbz4K_+RSmiM9HeRKpy3vS5xnbkL95gSEnWijzprKQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead of duplicating the logic to search for a matching
ParamPathInfo in multiple places, factor it out into a separate
function.
Pass only the relevant bits of the PartitionKey to
partition_bounds_equal instead of the whole thing, because
partition-wise join will want to call this without having a
PartitionKey available.
Adjust allow_star_schema_join and calc_nestloop_required_outer
to take relevant Relids rather than the entire Path, because
partition-wise join will want to call it with the top-parent
relids to determine whether a child join is allowable.
Ashutosh Bapat. Review and testing of the larger patch set of which
this is a part by Amit Langote, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Rafia Sabih,
Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobQK80vtXjAsPZWWXd7c8u13G86gmuLupN+uUJjA+i4nA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
plpgsql wants to recognize expressions that it can execute directly
via ExecEvalExpr() instead of going through the full SPI machinery.
Originally the test for this consisted of recursively groveling through
the post-planning expression tree to see if it contained only nodes that
plpgsql recognized as safe. That was a major maintenance headache, since
it required updating plpgsql every time we added any kind of expression
node. It was also kind of expensive, so over time we added various
pre-planning checks to try to short-circuit having to do that.
Robert Haas pointed out that as of the SRF-processing changes in v10,
particularly the addition of Query.hasTargetSRFs, there really isn't
any reason to make the recursive scan at all: the initial checks cover
everything we really care about. We do have to make sure that those
checks agree with what inline_function() considers, so that inlining
of a function that formerly wasn't inlined can't cause an expression
considered simple to become non-simple.
Hence, delete the recursive function exec_simple_check_node(), and tweak
those other tests to more exactly agree with inline_function(). Adjust
some comments and function naming to match.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZGZpwdEV2FQWaVxA_qZXsQE1DAS5Fu8fwxXDNvfndiUQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The API for WaitLatch and friends followed the Unix convention in which
waiting for a socket connection to complete is identical to waiting for
the socket to accept a write. While Windows provides a select(2)
emulation that agrees with that, the native WaitForMultipleObjects API
treats them as quite different --- and for some bizarre reason, it will
report a not-yet-connected socket as write-ready. libpq itself has so
far escaped dealing with this because it waits with select(), but in
libpqwalreceiver.c we want to wait using WaitLatchOrSocket. The semantics
mismatch resulted in replication connection failures on Windows, but only
for remote connections (apparently, localhost connections complete
immediately, or at least too fast for anyone to have noticed the problem
in single-machine testing).
To fix, introduce an additional WL_SOCKET_CONNECTED wait flag for
WaitLatchOrSocket, which is identical to WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE on
non-Windows, but results in waiting for FD_CONNECT events on Windows.
Ideally, we would also distinguish the two conditions in the API for
PQconnectPoll(), but changing that API at this point seems infeasible.
Instead, cheat by checking for PQstatus() == CONNECTION_STARTED to
determine that we're still waiting for the connection to complete.
(This is a cheat mainly because CONNECTION_STARTED is documented as an
internal state rather than something callers should rely on. Perhaps
we ought to change the documentation ... but this patch doesn't.)
Per reports from Jobin Augustine and Igor Neyman. Back-patch to v10
where commit 1e8a85009 exposed this longstanding shortcoming.
Andres Freund, minor fix and some code review/beautification by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHBggj8g2T+ZDcACZ2FmzX9CTxkWjKBsHd6NkYB4i9Ojf6K1Fw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently, child relations are always base relations, so when we
translate parent relids to child relids, we only need to translate
a singler relid. However, the proposed partition-wise join feature
will create child joins, which will mean we need to translate a set
of parent relids to the corresponding child relids. This is
preliminary refactoring to make that possible.
Ashutosh Bapat. Review and testing of the larger patch set of which
this is a part by Amit Langote, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Rafia Sabih,
Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, and me. Some adjustments, mostly
cosmetic, by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobQK80vtXjAsPZWWXd7c8u13G86gmuLupN+uUJjA+i4nA@mail.gmail.com
|
