| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In the wake of commit a16ef313f, we need to deal with more cases
involving PlaceHolderVars in NestLoopParams than we did before.
For one thing, a16ef313f was incorrect to suppose that we could
rely on the required-outer relids of the lefthand path to decide
placement of nestloop-parameter PHVs. As Richard Guo argued at
the time, we must look at the required-outer relids of the join
path itself.
For another, we have to apply replace_nestloop_params() to such
a PHV's expression, in case it contains references to values that
will be supplied from NestLoopParams of higher-level nestloops.
For another, we need to be more careful about the phnullingrels
of the PHV than we were being. identify_current_nestloop_params
only bothered to ensure that the phnullingrels didn't contain
"too many" relids, but now it has to be exact, because setrefs.c
will apply both NRM_SUBSET and NRM_SUPERSET checks in different
places. We can compute the correct relids by determining the
set of outer joins that should be able to null the PHV and then
subtracting whatever's been applied at or below this join.
Do the same for plain Vars, too. (This should make it possible
to use NRM_EQUAL to process nestloop params in setrefs.c, but
I won't risk making such a change in v18 now.)
Lastly, if a nestloop parameter PHV was pulled up out of a subquery
and it contains a subquery that was originally pushed down from this
query level, then that will still be represented as a SubLink, because
SS_process_sublinks won't recurse into outer PHVs, so it didn't get
transformed during expression preprocessing in the subquery. We can
substitute the version of the PHV's expression appearing in its
PlaceHolderInfo to ensure that that preprocessing has happened.
(Seems like this processing sequence could stand to be redesigned,
but again, late in v18 development is not the time for that.)
It's not very clear to me why the old have_dangerous_phv join-order
restriction prevented us from seeing the last three of these problems.
But given the lack of field complaints, it must have done so.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18953-1c9883a9d4afeb30@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit 85e5e222b, which added (a forerunner of) this logic,
argued that
Adding the necessary complexity to make this work doesn't seem like
it would be repaid in significantly better plans, because in cases
where such a PHV exists, there is probably a corresponding join order
constraint that would allow a good plan to be found without using the
star-schema exception.
The flaw in this claim is that there may be other join-order
restrictions that prevent us from finding a join order that doesn't
involve a "dangerous" PHV. In particular we now recognize that
small join_collapse_limit or from_collapse_limit could prevent it.
Therefore, let's bite the bullet and make the case work.
We don't have to extend the executor's support for nestloop parameters
as I thought at the time, because we can instead push the evaluation
of the placeholder's expression into the left-hand input of the
NestLoop node. So there's not really a lot of downside to this
solution, and giving the planner more join-order flexibility should
have value beyond just avoiding failure.
Having said that, there surely is a nonzero risk of introducing
new bugs. Since this failure mode escaped detection for ten years,
such cases don't seem common enough to justify a lot of risk.
Therefore, let's put this fix into master but leave the back branches
alone (for now anyway).
Bug: #18953
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Diagnosed-by: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18953-1c9883a9d4afeb30@postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This allows the RETURNING list of INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/MERGE queries
to explicitly return old and new values by using the special aliases
"old" and "new", which are automatically added to the query (if not
already defined) while parsing its RETURNING list, allowing things
like:
RETURNING old.colname, new.colname, ...
RETURNING old.*, new.*
Additionally, a new syntax is supported, allowing the names "old" and
"new" to be changed to user-supplied alias names, e.g.:
RETURNING WITH (OLD AS o, NEW AS n) o.colname, n.colname, ...
This is useful when the names "old" and "new" are already defined,
such as inside trigger functions, allowing backwards compatibility to
be maintained -- the interpretation of any existing queries that
happen to already refer to relations called "old" or "new", or use
those as aliases for other relations, is not changed.
For an INSERT, old values will generally be NULL, and for a DELETE,
new values will generally be NULL, but that may change for an INSERT
with an ON CONFLICT ... DO UPDATE clause, or if a query rewrite rule
changes the command type. Therefore, we put no restrictions on the use
of old and new in any DML queries.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Jian He and Jeff Davis.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWx0J0-v=Qjc6gXzR=KtsdvAE7Ow=D=mu50AgOe+pvisQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 13
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This allows a RETURNING clause to be appended to a MERGE query, to
return values based on each row inserted, updated, or deleted. As with
plain INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE commands, the returned values are
based on the new contents of the target table for INSERT and UPDATE
actions, and on its old contents for DELETE actions. Values from the
source relation may also be returned.
As with INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, the output of MERGE ... RETURNING may be
used as the source relation for other operations such as WITH queries
and COPY commands.
Additionally, a special function merge_action() is provided, which
returns 'INSERT', 'UPDATE', or 'DELETE', depending on the action
executed for each row. The merge_action() function can be used
anywhere in the RETURNING list, including in arbitrary expressions and
subqueries, but it is an error to use it anywhere outside of a MERGE
query's RETURNING list.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Isaac Morland, Vik Fearing, Alvaro Herrera,
Gurjeet Singh, Jian He, Jeff Davis, Merlin Moncure, Peter Eisentraut,
and Wolfgang Walther.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWePEGQR5LBn-vD6SfeLZafzEm2Qy_L_Oky2=qw2w3Pzg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reported-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZZKTDPxBBMt3C0J9@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 11
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 10
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
| |
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The old name of this file was never a very good indication of what it
was for. Now that there's also access/relation.h, we have a potential
confusion hazard as well, so let's rename it to something more apropos.
Per discussion, "pathnodes.h" is reasonable, since a good fraction of
the file is Path node definitions.
While at it, tweak a couple of other headers that were gratuitously
importing relation.h into modules that don't need it.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7719.1548688728@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
|
Up to now, createplan.c attempted to share PARAM_EXEC slots for
NestLoopParams across different plan levels, if the same underlying Var
was being fed down to different righthand-side subplan trees by different
NestLoops. This was, I think, more of an artifact of using subselect.c's
PlannerParamItem infrastructure than an explicit design goal, but anyway
that was the end result.
This works well enough as long as the plan tree is executing synchronously,
but the feature whereby Gather can execute the parallelized subplan locally
breaks it. An upper NestLoop node might execute for a row retrieved from
a parallel worker, and assign a value for a PARAM_EXEC slot from that row,
while the leader's copy of the parallelized subplan is suspended with a
different active value of the row the Var comes from. When control
eventually returns to the leader's subplan, it gets the wrong answers if
the same PARAM_EXEC slot is being used within the subplan, as reported
in bug #15577 from Bartosz Polnik.
This is pretty reminiscent of the problem fixed in commit 46c508fbc, and
the proper fix seems to be the same: don't try to share PARAM_EXEC slots
across different levels of controlling NestLoop nodes.
This requires decoupling NestLoopParam handling from PlannerParamItem
handling, although the logic remains somewhat similar. To avoid bizarre
division of labor between subselect.c and createplan.c, I decided to move
all the param-slot-assignment logic for both cases out of those files
and put it into a new file paramassign.c. Hopefully it's a bit better
documented now, too.
A regression test case for this might be nice, but we don't know a
test case that triggers the problem with a suitably small amount
of data.
Back-patch to 9.6 where we added Gather nodes. It's conceivable that
related problems exist in older branches; but without some evidence
for that, I'll leave the older branches alone.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15577-ca61ab18904af852@postgresql.org
|
