| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reported-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZZKTDPxBBMt3C0J9@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 11
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Make sure that function declarations use names that exactly match the
corresponding names from function definitions in storage, catalog,
access method, executor, and logical replication code, as well as in
miscellaneous utility/library code.
Like other recent commits that cleaned up function parameter names, this
commit was written with help from clang-tidy. Later commits will do the
same for other parts of the codebase.
Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Reviewed-By: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WznJt9CMM9KJTMjJh_zbL5hD9oX44qdJ4aqZtjFi-zA3Tg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 10
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This allows gathering the WAL generation statistics for each statement
execution. The three statistics that we collect are the number of WAL
records, the number of full page writes and the amount of WAL bytes
generated.
This helps the users who have write-intensive workload to see the impact
of I/O due to WAL. This further enables us to see approximately what
percentage of overall WAL is due to full page writes.
In the future, we can extend this functionality to allow us to compute the
the exact amount of WAL data due to full page writes.
This patch in itself is just an infrastructure to compute WAL usage data.
The upcoming patches will expose this data via explain, auto_explain,
pg_stat_statements and verbose (auto)vacuum output.
Author: Kirill Bychik, Julien Rouhaud
Reviewed-by: Dilip Kumar, Fujii Masao and Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAB-hujrP8ZfUkvL5OYETipQwA=e3n7oqHFU=4ZLxWS_Cza3kQQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, when using parallel query, EXPLAIN (ANALYZE)'s JIT
compilation timings did not include the overhead from doing so on the
workers. Fix that.
We do so by simply aggregating the cost of doing JIT compilation on
workers and the leader together. Arguably that's not quite accurate,
because the total time spend doing so is spent in parallel - but it's
hard to do much better. For additional detail, when VERBOSE is
specified, the stats for workers are displayed separately.
Author: Amit Khandekar and Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9eLrz51RK_gTkod+71iDcjpB_N8eC6vU2AW-VicsAERpQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 11-
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
|
| |
|
|
| |
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaA9=1RWKtBWpDaj+sF3Stgc8sHgf5z=KGtbjwPLQVDMA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If a PARAM_EXEC parameter is used below a Gather (Merge) but the InitPlan
that computes it is attached to or above the Gather (Merge), force the
value to be computed before starting parallelism and pass it down to all
workers. This allows us to use parallelism in cases where it previously
would have had to be rejected as unsafe. We do - in this case - lose the
optimization that the value is only computed if it's actually used. An
alternative strategy would be to have the first worker that needs the value
compute it, but one downside of that approach is that we'd then need to
select a parallel-safe path to compute the parameter value; it couldn't for
example contain a Gather (Merge) node. At some point in the future, we
might want to consider both approaches.
Independent of that consideration, there is a great deal more work that
could be done to make more kinds of PARAM_EXEC parameters parallel-safe.
This infrastructure could be used to allow a Gather (Merge) on the inner
side of a nested loop (although that's not a very appealing plan) and
cases where the InitPlan is attached below the Gather (Merge) could be
addressed as well using various techniques. But this is a good start.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and revised by me. Reviewing and testing from
Kuntal Ghosh, Haribabu Kommi, and Tushar Ahuja.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1LV0Y1AUV4cUCdC+sYOx0Z0-8NAJ2Pd9=UKsbQ5Sr7+JQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
With the introduction of a shared memory record typmod registry, it is no
longer necessary to remap record typmods when sending tuples between backends
so most of tqueue.c can be removed.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Move the responsibility for creating/destroying TupleQueueReaders into
execParallel.c, to avoid duplicative coding in nodeGather.c and
nodeGatherMerge.c. Also, instead of having DestroyTupleQueueReader do
shm_mq_detach, do it in the caller (which is now only ExecParallelFinish).
This means execParallel.c does both the attaching and detaching of the
tuple-queue-reader shm_mqs, which seems less weird than the previous
arrangement.
These changes also eliminate a vestigial memory leak (of the pei->tqueue
array). It's now demonstrable that rescans of Gather or GatherMerge don't
leak memory.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8670.1504192177@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We'd already recognized that we can't pass function pointers across process
boundaries for functions in loadable modules, since a shared library could
get loaded at different addresses in different processes. But actually the
practice doesn't work for functions in the core backend either, if we're
using EXEC_BACKEND. This is the cause of recent failures on buildfarm
member culicidae. Switch to passing a string function name in all cases.
Something like this needs to be back-patched into 9.6, but let's see
if the buildfarm likes it first.
Petr Jelinek, with a bunch of basically-cosmetic adjustments by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/548f9c1d-eafa-e3fa-9da8-f0cc2f654e60@2ndquadrant.com
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This will allow future parallel query code to dynamically allocate
storage shared by all participants.
Thomas Munro, with assorted changes by me.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch certain files through 9.1
|
| |
|
|
| |
Amit Kapila, per design ideas from me.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit b0b0d84b3d663a148022e900ebfc164284a95f55 purported to make it
possible to relaunch workers using the same parallel context, but it had
an unpleasant race condition: we might reinitialize after the workers
have sent their last control message but before they have dettached the
DSM, leaving to crashes. Repair by introducing a new ParallelContext
operation, ReinitializeParallelDSM.
Adjust execParallel.c to use this new support, so that we can rescan a
Gather node by relaunching workers but without needing to recreate the
DSM.
Amit Kapila, with some adjustments by me. Extracted from latest parallel
sequential scan patch.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In the previous coding, before returning from ExecutorRun, we'd shut
down all parallel workers. This was dead wrong if ExecutorRun was
called with a non-zero tuple count; it had the effect of truncating
the query output. To fix, give ExecutePlan control over whether to
enter parallel mode, and have it refuse to do so if the tuple count
is non-zero. Rewrite the Gather logic so that it can cope with being
called outside parallel mode.
Commit 7aea8e4f2daa4b39ca9d1309a0c4aadb0f7ed81b is largely to blame
for this problem, though this patch modifies some subsequently-committed
code which relied on the guarantees it purported to make.
|
|
|
This code provides infrastructure for a parallel leader to start up
parallel workers to execute subtrees of the plan tree being executed
in the master. User-supplied parameters from ParamListInfo are passed
down, but PARAM_EXEC parameters are not. Various other constructs,
such as initplans, subplans, and CTEs, are also not currently shared.
Nevertheless, there's enough here to support a basic implementation of
parallel query, and we can lift some of the current restrictions as
needed.
Amit Kapila and Robert Haas
|
