| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Previously, in postgresPlanForeignModify, we planned an UPDATE operation
on a foreign table so that we transmit only columns that were explicitly
targets of the UPDATE, so as to avoid unnecessary data transmission, but
if there were BEFORE ROW UPDATE triggers on the foreign table, those
triggers might change values for non-target columns, in which case we
would miss sending changed values for those columns. Prevent optimizing
away transmitting all columns if there are BEFORE ROW UPDATE triggers on
the foreign table.
This is an oversight in commit 7cbe57c34 which added triggers on foreign
tables, so apply the patch all the way back to 9.4 where that came in.
Author: Shohei Mochizuki
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/201905270152.x4R1q3qi014550@toshiba.co.jp
|
|
|
|
foreign_grouping_ok() is willing to put fairly arbitrary expressions into
the targetlist of a remote SELECT that's doing grouping or aggregation on
the remote side, including expressions that have no foreign component to
them at all. This is possibly a bit dubious from an efficiency standpoint;
but it rises to the level of a crash-causing bug if the expression is just
a Param or non-foreign Var. In that case, the expression will necessarily
also appear in the fdw_exprs list of values we need to send to the remote
server, and then setrefs.c's set_foreignscan_references will mistakenly
replace the fdw_exprs entry with a Var referencing the targetlist result.
The root cause of this problem is bad design in commit e7cb7ee14: it put
logic into set_foreignscan_references that IMV is postgres_fdw-specific,
and yet this bug shows that it isn't postgres_fdw-specific enough. The
transformation being done on fdw_exprs assumes that fdw_exprs is to be
evaluated with the fdw_scan_tlist as input, which is not how postgres_fdw
uses it; yet it could be the right thing for some other FDW. (In the
bigger picture, setrefs.c has no business assuming this for the other
expression fields of a ForeignScan either.)
The right fix therefore would be to expand the FDW API so that the
FDW could inform setrefs.c how it intends to evaluate these various
expressions. We can't change that in the back branches though, and we
also can't just summarily change setrefs.c's behavior there, or we're
likely to break external FDWs.
As a stopgap, therefore, hack up postgres_fdw so that it won't attempt
to send targetlist entries that look exactly like the fdw_exprs entries
they'd produce. In most cases this actually produces a superior plan,
IMO, with less data needing to be transmitted and returned; so we probably
ought to think harder about whether we should ship tlist expressions at
all when they don't contain any foreign Vars or Aggs. But that's an
optimization not a bug fix so I left it for later. One case where this
produces an inferior plan is where the expression in question is actually
a GROUP BY expression: then the restriction prevents us from using remote
grouping. It might be possible to work around that (since that would
reduce to group-by-a-constant on the remote side); but it seems like a
pretty unlikely corner case, so I'm not sure it's worth expending effort
solely to improve that. In any case the right long-term answer is to fix
the API as sketched above, and then revert this hack.
Per bug #15781 from Sean Johnston. Back-patch to v10 where the problem
was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15781-2601b1002bad087c@postgresql.org
|
|
Commit 3d956d9562 added support for update row movement in postgres_fdw.
This patch fixes the following issues introduced by that commit:
* When a remote partition chosen to insert routed rows into was also an
UPDATE subplan target rel that would be updated later, the UPDATE that
used a direct modification plan modified those routed rows incorrectly
because those routed rows were visible to the later UPDATE command.
The right fix for this would be to have some way in postgres_fdw in
which the later UPDATE command ignores those routed rows, but it seems
hard to do so with the current infrastructure. For now throw an error
in that case.
* When a remote partition chosen to insert routed rows into was also an
UPDATE subplan target rel, fmstate created for the UPDATE that used a
non-direct modification plan was mistakenly overridden by another
fmstate created for inserting those routed rows into the partition.
This caused 1) server crash when the partition would be updated later,
and 2) resource leak when the partition had been already updated. To
avoid that, adjust the treatment of the fmstate for the inserting. As
for #1, since we would also have the incorrectness issue as mentioned
above, error out in that case as well.
Update the docs to mention that postgres_fdw currently does not handle
the case where a remote partition chosen to insert a routed row into is
also an UPDATE subplan target rel that will be updated later.
Author: Amit Langote and Etsuro Fujita
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Backpatch-through: 11 where row movement in postgres_fdw was added
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/21e7eaa4-0d4d-20c2-a1f7-c7e96f4ce440@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
|
As reported in bug #15613 from Srinivasan S A, file_fdw and postgres_fdw
neglected to mark plain baserel foreign paths as parameterized when the
relation has lateral_relids. Other FDWs have surely copied this mistake,
so rather than just patching those two modules, install a band-aid fix
in create_foreignscan_path to rectify the mistake centrally.
Although the band-aid is enough to fix the visible symptom, correct
the calls in file_fdw and postgres_fdw anyway, so that they are valid
examples for external FDWs.
Also, since the band-aid isn't enough to make this work for parameterized
foreign joins, throw an elog(ERROR) if such a case is passed to
create_foreignscan_path. This shouldn't pose much of a problem for
existing external FDWs, since it's likely they aren't trying to make such
paths anyway (though some of them may need a defense against joins with
lateral_relids, similar to the one this patch installs into postgres_fdw).
Add some assertions in relnode.c to catch future occurrences of the same
error --- in particular, as backstop against core-code mistakes like the
one fixed by commit bdd9a99aa.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15613-092be1be9576c728@postgresql.org
|
|
postgres_fdw's postgresGetForeignPlan() assumes without checking that the
outer_plan it's given for a join relation must have a NestLoop, MergeJoin,
or HashJoin node at the top. That's been wrong at least since commit
4bbf6edfb (which could cause insertion of a Sort node on top) and it seems
like a pretty unsafe thing to Just Assume even without that.
Through blind good fortune, this doesn't seem to have any worse
consequences today than strange EXPLAIN output, but it's clearly trouble
waiting to happen.
To fix, test the node type explicitly before touching Join-specific
fields, and avoid jamming the new tlist into a node type that can't
do projection. Export a new support function from createplan.c
to avoid building low-level knowledge about the latter into FDWs.
Back-patch to 9.6 where the faulty coding was added. Note that the
associated regression test cases don't show any changes before v11,
apparently because the tests back-patched with 4bbf6edfb don't actually
exercise the problem case before then (there's no top-level Sort
in those plans).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8946.1544644803@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Reported-by: Etsuro Fujita
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5BFE34DE.1080404@lab.ntt.co.jp
Author: Etsuro Fujita
Backpatch-through: 10
|
|
Commit aa09cd242 changed a condition in find_em_expr_for_rel from
being a bms_equal comparison of relids to bms_is_subset, in order to
support order by clauses on foreign joins. But this also allows
through the degenerate case of expressions with no Vars at all (and
hence empty relids), including integer constants which will be parsed
unexpectedly on the remote (viz. "ERROR: ORDER BY position 0 is not in
select list" as in the bug report).
Repair by adding an additional !bms_is_empty test.
Backpatch through to 9.6 where the aforementioned change was made.
Per bug #15352 from Maksym Boguk; analysis and patch by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/153518420278.1478.14875560810251994661@wrigleys.postgresql.org
|
|
|
|
Etsuro Fujita
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/5AE99BA7.9060001@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
|
Without these fixes, changes to the inserted tuple made by remote
triggers are ignored when building local RETURNING tuples.
In the core code, call ExecInitRoutingInfo at a later point from
within ExecInitPartitionInfo so that the FDW callback gets invoked
after the returning list has been built. But move CheckValidResultRel
out of ExecInitRoutingInfo so that it can happen at an earlier stage.
In postgres_fdw, refactor assorted deparsing functions to work with
the RTE rather than the PlannerInfo, which saves us having to
construct a fake PlannerInfo in cases where we don't have a real one.
Then, we can pass down a constructed RTE that yields the correct
deparse result when no real one exists. Unfortunately, this
necessitates a hack that understands how the core code manages RT
indexes for update tuple routing, which is ugly, but we don't have a
better idea right now.
Original report, analysis, and patch by Etsuro Fujita. Heavily
refactored by me. Then worked over some more by Amit Langote.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/5AD4882B.10002@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
|
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15719.1523984266@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
On further reflection, commit e5d83995e didn't go far enough: pretty much
everywhere in the planner that examines a clause's is_pushed_down flag
ought to be changed to use the more complicated behavior where we also
check the clause's required_relids. Otherwise we could make incorrect
decisions about whether, say, a clause is safe to use as a hash clause.
Some (many?) of these places are safe as-is, either because they are
never reached while considering a parameterized path, or because there
are additional checks that would reject a pushed-down clause anyway.
However, it seems smarter to just code them all the same way rather
than rely on easily-broken reasoning of that sort.
In support of that, invent a new macro RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN that should
be used in place of direct tests on the is_pushed_down flag.
Like the previous patch, back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f8128b11-c5bf-3539-48cd-234178b2314d@proxel.se
|
|
Also enable this for postgres_fdw.
Etsuro Fujita, based on an earlier patch by Amit Langote. The larger
patch series of which this is a part has been reviewed by Amit
Langote, David Fetter, Maksim Milyutin, Álvaro Herrera, Stephen Frost,
and me. Minor documentation changes to the final version by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/29906a26-da12-8c86-4fb9-d8f88442f2b9@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
|
Etsuro Fujita. The larger patch series of which this is a part has
been reviewed by Amit Langote, David Fetter, Maksim Milyutin,
Álvaro Herrera, Stephen Frost, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/5A95487E.9050808@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
|
Since commit 7012b132d07c2b4ea15b0b3cb1ea9f3278801d98, postgres_fdw
has been able to push down the toplevel aggregation operation to the
remote server. Commit e2f1eb0ee30d144628ab523432320f174a2c8966 made
it possible to break down the toplevel aggregation into one
aggregate per partition. This commit lets postgres_fdw push down
aggregation in that case just as it does at the top level.
In order to make this work, this commit adds an additional argument
to the GetForeignUpperPaths FDW API. A matching argument is added
to the signature for create_upper_paths_hook. Third-party code using
either of these will need to be updated.
Also adjust create_foreignscan_plan() so that it picks up the correct
set of relids in this case.
Jeevan Chalke, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat and by me and with some
adjustments by me. The larger patch series of which this patch is a
part was also reviewed and tested by Antonin Houska, Rajkumar
Raghuwanshi, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar, Konstantin Knizhnik, Pascal
Legrand, and Rafia Sabih.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM2+6=V64_xhstVHie0Rz=KPEQnLJMZt_e314P0jaT_oJ9MR8A@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM2+6=XPWujjmj5zUaBTGDoB38CemwcPmjkRy0qOcsQj_V+2sQ@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Commit f49842d1ee31b976c681322f76025d7732e860f3 introduced the
concept of a child join, but did not update this code accordingly.
Ashutosh Bapat, with cosmetic changes by me
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRf=J_KPOtw+bhZeURYkbizr8ufSaXg6gPEF6DKpgH-t6g@mail.gmail.com
|
|
While this is not illegal C, project style is to put "extern" only on
declarations not definitions.
David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f9RKLWXcMBQhvDYhmsMEo+ALuNgA-NE+AX5Uoke9DJ2Xg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
The modern way is to use a missing_ok argument instead of two separate
almost-identical routines, so do that.
Author: Michaël Paquier
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180201063212.GE6398@paquier.xyz
|
|
Commit 0bf3ae88af330496517722e391e7c975e6bad219 allowed direct
foreign table modification; instead of fetching each row, updating
it locally, and then pushing the modification back to the remote
side, we would instead do all the work on the remote server via a
single remote UPDATE or DELETE command. However, that commit only
enabled this optimization when join tree consisted only of the
target table.
This change allows the same optimization when an UPDATE statement
has a FROM clause or a DELETE statement has a USING clause. This
works much like ordinary foreign join pushdown, in that the tables
must be on the same remote server, relevant parts of the query
must be pushdown-safe, and so forth.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat, Rushabh Lathia, and me.
Some formatting corrections by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/5A57193A.2080003@lab.ntt.co.jp
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/b9cee735-62f8-6c07-7528-6364ce9347d0@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
|
When pushing down a join to a foreign server, postgres_fdw constructs
an alternative plan to be used for any EvalPlanQual rechecks that
prove to be necessary. This plan is stored as the outer subplan of
the Foreign Scan implementing the pushed-down join. Previously, this
alternative plan could have a different nominal sort ordering than its
parent, which seemed OK since there will only be one tuple per base
table anyway in the case of an EvalPlanQual recheck. Actually,
though, it caused a problem if that path was used as a building block
for the EvalPlanQual recheck plan of a higher-level foreign join,
because we could end up with a merge join one of whose inputs was not
labelled with the correct sort order. Repair by injecting an extra
Sort node into the EvalPlanQual recheck plan whenever it would
otherwise fail to be sorted at least as well as its parent Foreign
Scan.
Report by Jeff Janes. Patch by me, reviewed by Tom Lane, who also
provided the test case and comment text.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAMkU=1y2G8VOVBHv3iXU2TMAj7-RyBFFW1uhkr5sm9LQ2=X35g@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Commit 7012b132d, which added the ability to push down aggregates and
grouping to the remote server, wasn't careful to ensure that the remote
server would have the same idea we do about which columns are the grouping
columns, in cases where there are textually identical GROUP BY expressions.
Such cases typically led to "targetlist item has multiple sortgroupref
labels" errors.
To fix this reliably, switch over to using "GROUP BY column-number" syntax
rather than "GROUP BY expression" in transmitted queries, and adjust
foreign_grouping_ok() to be more careful about duplicating the sortgroupref
labeling of the local pathtarget.
Per bug #14890 from Sean Johnston. Back-patch to v10 where the buggy code
was introduced.
Jeevan Chalke, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171107134948.1508.94783@wrigleys.postgresql.org
|
|
Make the forward declaration of estimate_path_cost_size match its
actual definition.
Tatsuro Yamada
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/96f2f554-1eeb-fe6f-e0db-650771886781@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
|
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
|
|
Etsuro Fujita
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/5A4393AA.8000708@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
|
Use the same parameter names as in the definition. Cosmetic fix only.
Tatsuro Yamada
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/58E711AF.7070305@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
|
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
|
|
Spotted by Tom Lane
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/27897.1502901074@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Author: Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>
|
|
Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they
flow past the right margin.
By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are
within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding
left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the
continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin,
then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin,
if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of
the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations
unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column
limit.
This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers.
Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized
lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren.
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
|
|
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
|
|
perltidy run not included.
|
|
Objects in an extension are shippable to a foreign server if the
extension is part of the foreign server definition's shippable
extensions list. But this was not properly considered in some cases
when checking whether a join condition can be pushed to a foreign server
and the join condition uses an object from a shippable extension. So
the join would never be pushed down in those cases.
So, the list of extensions needs to be made available in fpinfo of the
relation being considered to be pushed down before any expressions are
assessed for being shippable. Fix foreign_join_ok() to do that for a
join relation.
The code to save FDW options in fpinfo is scattered at multiple places.
Bring all of that together into functions apply_server_options(),
apply_table_options(), and merge_fdw_options().
David Rowley and Ashutosh Bapat, per report from David Rowley
|
|
Commit 0bf3ae88a encountered a need to pass the finally chosen remote qual
conditions forward from postgresGetForeignPlan to postgresPlanDirectModify.
It solved that by sticking them into the plan node's fdw_private list,
which in hindsight was a pretty bad idea. In the first place, there's no
use for those qual trees either in EXPLAIN or execution; indeed they could
never safely be used for any post-planning purposes, because they would not
get processed by setrefs.c. So they're just dead weight to carry around in
the finished plan tree, plus being an attractive nuisance for somebody who
might get the idea that they could be used that way. Secondly, because
those qual trees (sometimes) contained RestrictInfos, they created a
plan-transmission hazard for parallel query, which is how come we noticed a
problem. We dealt with that symptom in commit 28b047875, but really a more
straightforward and more efficient fix is to pass the data through in a new
field of struct PgFdwRelationInfo. So do it that way. (There's no need
to revert 28b047875, as it has sufficient reason to live anyway.)
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87tw5x4vcu.fsf@credativ.de
|
|
Clauses in the lists retained by postgres_fdw during planning were
sometimes bare boolean clauses, sometimes RestrictInfos, and sometimes
a mixture of the two in the same list. The comment about that situation
didn't come close to telling the full truth, either. Aside from being
confusing, this had a couple of bad practical consequences:
* waste of planning cycles due to inability to cache per-clause selectivity
and cost estimates;
* sometimes, RestrictInfos would sneak into the fdw_private list of a
finished Plan node, causing failures if, for example, we tried to ship
the Plan tree to a parallel worker.
(It may well be that it's a bug in the parallel-query logic that we
would ever try to ship such a plan to a parallel worker, but in any
case this deserves to be cleaned up.)
To fix, rearrange so that clause lists in PgFdwRelationInfo are always
lists of RestrictInfos, and then strip the RestrictInfos at the last
minute when making a Plan node. In passing do a bit of refactoring and
comment cleanup in postgresGetForeignPlan and foreign_join_ok.
Although the messiness here dates back at least to 9.6, there's no evidence
that it causes anything worse than wasted planning cycles in 9.6, so no
back-patch for now.
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich.
Tom Lane and Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87tw5x4vcu.fsf@credativ.de
|
|
This extends the castNode() notation introduced by commit 5bcab1114 to
provide, in one step, extraction of a list cell's pointer and coercion to
a concrete node type. For example, "lfirst_node(Foo, lc)" is the same
as "castNode(Foo, lfirst(lc))". Almost half of the uses of castNode
that have appeared so far include a list extraction call, so this is
pretty widely useful, and it saves a few more keystrokes compared to the
old way.
As with the previous patch, back-patch the addition of these macros to
pg_list.h, so that the notation will be available when back-patching.
Patch by me, after an idea of Andrew Gierth's.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/14197.1491841216@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f9yurJQW9pdnzL+rmOtsp2vOytkpXKGnMFJEO-qz5O5eA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Follow on patch in the multi-variate statistics patch series.
CREATE STATISTICS s1 WITH (dependencies) ON (a, b) FROM t;
ANALYZE;
will collect dependency stats on (a, b) and then use the measured
dependency in subsequent query planning.
Commit 7b504eb282ca2f5104b5c00b4f05a3ef6bb1385b added
CREATE STATISTICS with n-distinct coefficients. These are now
specified using the mutually exclusive option WITH (ndistinct).
Author: Tomas Vondra, David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI, Álvaro Herrera, Dean Rasheed, Robert Haas
and many other comments and contributions
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/56f40b20-c464-fad2-ff39-06b668fac47c@2ndquadrant.com
|
|
Currently, the only type of child relation is an "other member rel",
which is the child of a baserel, but in the future joins and even
upper relations may have child rels. To facilitate that, introduce
macros that test to test for particular RelOptKind values, and use
them in various places where they help to clarify the sense of a test.
(For example, a test may allow RELOPT_OTHER_MEMBER_REL either because
it intends to allow child rels, or because it intends to allow simple
rels.)
Also, remove find_childrel_top_parent, which will not work for a
child rel that is not a baserel. Instead, add a new RelOptInfo
member top_parent_relids to track the same kind of information in a
more generic manner.
Ashutosh Bapat, slightly tweaked by me. Review and testing of the
patch set from which this was taken by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi and Rafia
Sabih.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoagTnF2yqR3PT2rv=om=wJiZ4-A+ATwdnriTGku1CLYxA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Don't import partitions. Do import partitioned tables which are
not themselves partitions.
Report by Stephen Frost. Design and patch by Michael Paquier,
reviewed by Amit Langote. Documentation revised by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20170309141531.GD9812@tamriel.snowman.net
|
|
This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with
non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation.
Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation.
This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes
future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier.
The speed gains primarily come from:
- non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead
- simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without
function calls
- sharing some state between different sub-expressions
- reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying
out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of
nearly all of the previously used linked lists
- more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding
constant re-checks at evaluation time
Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as
demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later
release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split
between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be
handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the
generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can
easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation.
The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.:
- basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup
overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared
statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where
initialization overhead is measurable.
- optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential
work has already been made.
- optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have
been made here too.
The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some
backward-incompatible changes:
- Function permission checks are now done during expression
initialization, whereas previously they were done during
execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that
previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a
different array type previously didn't perform checks.
- The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once
during expression initialization, previously it was re-built
every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this
doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches
ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior
around might still change.
Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane,
changes by Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
|
|
The previous deparsing logic wasn't smart enough to produce subqueries
when deparsing; make it smart enough to do that. However, we only do
it that way when necessary, because it generates more complicated SQL
which will be harder for any humans reading the queries to understand.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/c449261a-b033-dc02-9254-2fe5b7044795@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
|
Although it's reasonable to expect that most of these constants will
never change, that does not make it good programming style to hard-code
the value rather than using the RELKIND_FOO macros.
I think I've now gotten all the hard-coded references in C code.
Unfortunately there's no equally convenient way to parameterize
SQL files ...
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11145.1488931324@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Etsuro Fujita
|
|
This is far from a pervasive conversion, but it's a good starting
point.
Author: Peter Eisentraut, with some minor changes by me
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/c5d387d9-3440-f5e0-f9d4-71d53b9fbe52@2ndquadrant.com
|
|
Since 69f4b9c plain expression evaluation (and thus normal projection)
can't return sets of tuples anymore. Thus remove code dealing with
that possibility.
This will require adjustments in external code using
ExecEvalExpr()/ExecProject() - that should neither be hard nor very
common.
Author: Andres Freund and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160822214023.aaxz5l4igypowyri@alap3.anarazel.de
|
|
|
|
Etsuro Fujita
|
|
Tatsuro Yamada, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat
|
|
Now that the upper planner uses paths, and now that we have proper hooks
to inject paths into the upper planning process, it's possible for
foreign data wrappers to arrange to push aggregates to the remote side
instead of fetching all of the rows and aggregating them locally. This
figures to be a massive win for performance, so teach postgres_fdw to
do it.
Jeevan Chalke and Ashutosh Bapat. Reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat with
additional testing by Prabhat Sahu. Various mostly cosmetic changes
by me.
|
