| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
If the planner erroneously puts a non-parallel-safe SubPlan into
a parallelized portion of the query tree, nodeSubplan.c will fail
in the worker processes because it finds a null in es_subplanstates,
which it's unable to cope with. It seems worth a test-and-elog to
make that an error case rather than a core dump case.
This probably should have been included in commit 16ebab688, which
was responsible for allowing nulls to appear in es_subplanstates
to begin with. So, back-patch to v10 where that came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/924226.1604422326@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
nodeSubplan.c expects that the testexpr for a hashable ANY SubPlan
has the form of one or more OpExprs whose LHS is an expression of the
outer query's, while the RHS is an expression over Params representing
output columns of the subquery. However, the planner only went as far
as verifying that the clauses were all binary OpExprs. This works
99.99% of the time, because the clauses have the right shape when
emitted by the parser --- but it's possible for function inlining to
break that, as reported by PegoraroF10. To fix, teach the planner
to check that the LHS and RHS contain the right things, or more
accurately don't contain the wrong things. Given that this has been
broken for years without anyone noticing, it seems sufficient to just
give up hashing when it happens, rather than go to the trouble of
commuting the clauses back again (which wouldn't necessarily work
anyway).
While poking at that, I also noticed that nodeSubplan.c had a baked-in
assumption that the number of hash clauses is identical to the number
of subquery output columns. Again, that's fine as far as parser output
goes, but it's not hard to break it via function inlining. There seems
little reason for that assumption though --- AFAICS, the only thing
it's buying us is not having to store the number of hash clauses
explicitly. Adding code to the planner to reject such cases would take
more code than getting nodeSubplan.c to cope, so I fixed it that way.
This has been broken for as long as we've had hashable SubPlans,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1549209182255-0.post@n3.nabble.com
|
|
Commit 85c9d347 addressed a similar problem for Gather and Gather
Merge nodes but forgot to account for nodes above parallel nodes. This
still works for nodes above Gather node because we shut down the workers
for Gather node as soon as there are no more tuples. We can do a similar
thing for Gather Merge as well but it seems better to account for stats
during nodes shutdown after completing the execution.
Reported-by: Stéphane Lorek, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
Author: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 10, where it was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200718160206.584532a2@firost
|
|
Convert buffile.c error handling to use ereport. This fixes cases where
I/O errors were indistinguishable from EOF or not reported. Also remove
"%m" from error messages where errno would be bogus. While we're
modifying those strings, add block numbers and short read byte counts
where appropriate.
Back-patch to all supported releases.
Reported-by: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGJE04G%3D8TLK0DLypT_27D9dR8F1RQgNp0jK6qR0tZGWOw%40mail.gmail.com
|
|
In a logical replication subscriber, a table using REPLICA IDENTITY FULL
which has a primary key would try to use the primary key's index
available to scan for a tuple, but an assertion only assumed as correct
the case of an index associated to REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX. This
commit corrects the assertion so as the use of a primary key index is a
valid case.
Reported-by: Dilip Kumar
Analyzed-by: Dilip Kumar
Author: Euler Taveira
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Masahiko Sawada
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFiTN-u64S5bUiPL1q5kwpHNd0hRnf1OE-bzxNiOs5zo84i51w@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
|
|
Working on commit 1c455078b led me to check through FunctionCallInvoke
call sites to see if every one was being honest about (a) making sure
that fcinfo.isnull is initially false, and (b) checking its state after
the call. Sure enough, I found some violations.
The main one is that finalize_partialaggregate re-used serialfn_fcinfo
without resetting isnull, even though it clearly intends to cater for
serialfns that return NULL. There would only be an issue with a
non-strict serialfn, since it's unlikely that a serialfn would return
NULL for non-null input. We have no non-strict serialfns in core, and
there may be none in the wild either, which would account for the lack
of complaints. Still, it's clearly wrong, so back-patch that fix to
9.6 where finalize_partialaggregate was introduced.
Also, arrayfuncs.c and rowtypes.c contained various callers that were
not bothering to check for result nulls. While what's being called is
a comparison or hash function that probably *shouldn't* return null,
that's a lousy excuse for not having any check at all. There are
existing places that just Assert(!fcinfo->isnull) in comparable
situations, so I added that to the places that were calling btree
comparison or hash support functions. In the places calling
boolean-returning equality functions, it's quite cheap to have them
treat isnull as FALSE, so make those places do that. Also remove some
"locfcinfo->isnull = false" assignments that are unnecessary given the
assumption that no previous call returned null. These changes seem like
mostly neatnik-ism or debugging support, so I didn't back-patch.
|
|
ExecReScanHashJoin will destroy the join's hash table if it expects
that the inner relation will produce different rows on rescan.
Up to now it's not bothered to clear the additional pointer to that
hash table that exists in the child HashState node. However, it's
possible for the query to terminate without building a fresh hash
table (this happens if the outer relation is found to be empty
during the final rescan). So we can end with a dangling pointer
to a deleted hash table. That was harmless originally, but since
9.0 EXPLAIN ANALYZE has used that pointer to print hash table
statistics. In debug builds this reproducibly results in garbage
statistics. In non-debug builds there's frequently no ill effects,
but in principle one could get wrong EXPLAIN ANALYZE output, or
perhaps even a crash if free() has released the hashtable memory
back to the OS.
To fix, just make sure we clear the additional pointer when destroying
the hash table. In problematic cases, EXPLAIN ANALYZE will then print
no hashtable statistics (reverting to its pre-9.0 behavior). This isn't
ideal, but since the problem manifests only in unusual corner cases,
it's hard to justify taking any risks to do better in the back
branches. A follow-on patch will improve matters in HEAD.
Konstantin Knizhnik and Tom Lane, per diagnosis by Thomas Munro
of a trouble report from Alvaro Herrera.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200323165059.GA24950@alvherre.pgsql
|
|
During the reporting of constraint violations for partitioned tables,
ExecPartitionCheckEmitError(), ExecConstraints(),
ExecWithCheckOptions() set the slot descriptor of the input slot to
the root partition's tuple desc. That's generally problematic when
the slot could be used by other routines, but can cause crashes after
the introduction of slots with "fixed" tuple descriptors in
ad7dbee368a.
The problem likely escaped detection so far for two reasons: First,
currently the only known way that these routines are used with a
partitioned table that is not "owned" by partitioning code is when
"fast defaults" are used for the child partition. Second, as an error
is raised afterwards, an "external" slot that had its descriptor
changed, is very unlikely to continue being used.
Even though the issue currently is only known to cause a crash for
11 (as that has both fast defaults and "fixed" slot descriptors), it
seems worth applying the fix to 10 too. Potentially changing random
slots is hazardous.
Regression tests will be added in a separate commit, as it seems best
to add them for master and 12 too.
Reported-By: Daniel WM
Author: Andres Freund
Bug: #16293
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16293-26f5777d10143a66@postgresql.org
Backpatch: 11, 10 only
|
|
Commit 356687bd8 omitted to remove leftover code for destroying
a hashed subplan's hash tables, with the result that the tables
were always rebuilt not reused; this leads to severe memory
leakage if a hashed subplan is re-executed enough times.
Moreover, the code for reusing the hashnulls table had a typo
that would have made it do the wrong thing if it were reached.
Looking at the code coverage report shows severe under-coverage
of the potential callers of ResetTupleHashTable, so add some test
cases that exercise them.
Andreas Karlsson and Tom Lane, per reports from Ranier Vilela
and Justin Pryzby.
Backpatch to v11, as the faulty commit was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/edb62547-c453-c35b-3ed6-a069e4d6b937@proxel.se
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEudQAo=DCebm1RXtig9OH+QivpS97sMkikt0A9qHmMUs+g6ZA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200210032547.GA1412@telsasoft.com
|
|
When replica identity is FULL (an admittedly unusual case), the loop
that searches for tuples in execReplication.c didn't stop scanning the
table when once a matching tuple was found. Add the missing 'break'.
Note slight behavior change: we now return the first matching tuple
rather than the last one. They are supposed to be indistinguishable
anyway, so this shouldn't matter.
Author: Konstantin Knizhnik
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/379743f6-ae91-b866-f7a2-5624e6d2b0a4@postgrespro.ru
|
|
Currently, Parallel Hash Join cannot be used for full/right joins,
so there is no point in setting the match flag. It turns out that
the cache coherence traffic generated by those writes slows down
large systems running many-core joins, so let's stop doing that.
In future, if we need to use match bits in parallel joins, we might
want to consider setting them only if not already set.
Back-patch to 11, where Parallel Hash Join arrived.
Reported-by: Deng, Gang
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/0F44E799048C4849BAE4B91012DB910462E9897A%40SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com
|
|
The code checking whether an aggregate transition value needs to be
reparented into the current context has always only compared the
transition return value with the previous transition value by datum,
i.e. without regard for NULLness. This normally works, because when
the transition function returns NULL (via fcinfo->isnull), it'll
return a value that won't be the same as its input value.
But there's no hard requirement that that's the case. And it turns
out, it's possible to hit this case (see discussion or reproducers),
leading to a non-null transition value not being reparented, followed
by a crash caused by that.
Instead of adding another comparison of NULLness, instead have
ExecAggTransReparent() ensure that pergroup->transValue ends up as 0
when the new transition value is NULL. That avoids having to add an
additional branch to the much more common cases of the transition
function returning the old transition value (which is a pointer in
this case), and when the new value is different, but not NULL.
In branches since 69c3936a149, also deduplicate the reparenting code
between the expression evaluation based transitions, and the path for
ordered aggregates.
Reported-By: Teodor Sigaev, Nikita Glukhov
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/bd34e930-cfec-ea9b-3827-a8bc50891393@sigaev.ru
Backpatch: 9.4-, this issue has existed since at least 7.4
|
|
Commit 9b63c13f0 turns out to have been fundamentally misguided:
the parent node's subPlan list is by no means the only way in which
a child SubPlan node can be hooked into the outer execution state.
As shown in bug #16213 from Matt Jibson, we can also get short-lived
tuple table slots added to the outer es_tupleTable list. At this point
I have little faith that there aren't other possible connections as
well; the long time it took to notice this problem shows that this
isn't a heavily-exercised situation.
Therefore, revert that fix, returning to the coding that passed a
NULL parent plan pointer down to the transiently-built subexpressions.
That gives us a pretty good guarantee that they won't hook into the
outer executor state in any way. But then we need some other solution
to make SubPlans work. Adopt the solution speculated about in the
previous commit's log message: do expression initialization at plan
startup for just those VALUES rows containing SubPlans, abandoning the
goal of reclaiming memory intra-query for those rows. In practice it
seems unlikely that queries containing a vast number of VALUES rows
would be using SubPlans in them, so this should not give up much.
(BTW, this test case also refutes my claim in connection with the prior
commit that the issue only arises with use of LATERAL. That was just
wrong: some variants of SubLink always produce SubPlans.)
As with previous patch, back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16213-871ac3bc208ecf23@postgresql.org
|
|
A view with conditional INSTEAD rules and no unconditional INSTEAD
rules or INSTEAD OF triggers is not auto-updatable. Previously we
relied on a check in the executor to catch this, but that's
problematic since the planner may fail to properly handle such a query
and thus return a particularly unhelpful error to the user, before
reaching the executor check.
Instead, trap this in the rewriter and report the correct error there.
Doing so also allows us to include more useful error detail than the
executor check can provide. This doesn't change the existing behaviour
of updatable views; it merely ensures that useful error messages are
reported when a view isn't updatable.
Per report from Pengzhou Tang, though not adopting that suggested fix.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAG4reAQn+4xB6xHJqWdtE0ve_WqJkdyCV4P=trYr4Kn8_3_PEA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Our algorithm for choosing batch numbers turned out not to work
effectively for multi-billion key inner relations. We would use
more hash bits than we have, and effectively concentrate all tuples
into a smaller number of batches than we intended. While ideally
we should switch to wider hashes, for now, change the algorithm to
one that effectively gives up bits from the bucket number when we
don't have enough bits. That means we'll finish up with longer
bucket chains than would be ideal, but that's better than having
batches that don't fit in work_mem and can't be divided.
Batch-patch to all supported releases.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, thanks also to Tomas Vondra, Alvaro Herrera, Andres Freund for testing and discussion
Reported-by: James Coleman
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16104-dc11ed911f1ab9df%40postgresql.org
|
|
Revert part of commit 19df1702f5.
Early shutdown was added by that commit so that we could collect
statistics from workers, but unfortunately, it interacted badly with
rescans. The problem is that we ended up destroying the parallel context
which is required for rescans. This leads to rescans of a Limit node over
a Gather node to produce unpredictable results as it tries to access
destroyed parallel context. By reverting the early shutdown code, we
might lose statistics in some cases of Limit over Gather [Merge], but that
will require further study to fix.
Reported-by: Jerry Sievers
Diagnosed-by: Thomas Munro
Author: Amit Kapila, testcase by Vignesh C
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87ims2amh6.fsf@jsievers.enova.com
|
|
Call ExecShutdownNode() after ExecutePlan()'s loop, rather than at each
break. We had forgotten to do that in one case. The omission caused
intermittent "temporary file leak" warnings from multi-batch parallel
hash joins with a LIMIT clause.
Back-patch to 11. Though the problem exists in theory in earlier
parallel query releases, nothing really depended on it.
Author: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Reviewed-by: Thomas Munro, Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191111.212418.2222262873417235945.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com
|
|
In the course of 5567d12ce03, 356687bd8 and 317ffdfeaac, I changed
BuildTupleHashTable[Ext]'s call to ExecBuildGroupingEqual to not pass
in the parent node, but NULL. Which in turn prevents the tuple
equality comparator from being JIT compiled. While that fixes
bug #15486, it is not actually necessary after all of the above commits,
as we don't re-build the comparator when using the new
BuildTupleHashTableExt() interface (as the content of the hashtable
are reset, but the TupleHashTable itself is not).
Therefore re-allow jit compilation for callers that use
BuildTupleHashTableExt with a separate context for "metadata" and
content.
As in the previous commit, there's ongoing work to make this easier to
test to prevent such regressions in the future, but that
infrastructure is not going to be backpatchable.
The performance impact of not JIT compiling hashtable equality
comparators can be substantial e.g. for aggregation queries that
aggregate a lot of input rows to few output rows (when there are a lot
of output groups, there will be fewer comparisons).
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190927072053.njf6prdl3vb7y7qb@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 11, just as 5567d12ce03
|
|
Since WITH CHECK OPTION was introduced, ExecInitModifyTable has
initialized WCO expressions with the wrong plan node as parent -- that is,
it passed its input subplan not the ModifyTable node itself. Up to now
we thought this was harmless, but bug #16006 from Vinay Banakar shows it's
not: if the input node is a SubqueryScan then ExecInitWholeRowVar can get
confused into doing the wrong thing. (The fact that ExecInitWholeRowVar
contains such logic is certainly a horrid kluge that doesn't deserve to
live, but figuring out another way to do that is a task for some other day.)
Andres had already noticed the wrong-parent mistake and fixed it in commit
148e632c0, but not being aware of any user-visible consequences, he quite
reasonably didn't back-patch. This patch is simply a back-patch of
148e632c0, plus addition of a test case based on bug #16006. I also added
the test case to v12/HEAD, even though the bug is already fixed there.
Back-patch to all supported branches. 9.4 lacks RLS policies so the
new test case doesn't work there, but I'm pretty sure a test could be
devised based on using a whole-row Var in a plain WITH CHECK OPTION
condition. (I lack the cycles to do so myself, though.)
Andres Freund and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16006-99290d2e4642cbd5@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181205225213.hiwa3kgoxeybqcqv@alap3.anarazel.de
|
|
Commit bf6c614a2 rearranged the lookup of the comparison operators
needed in a hashed subplan, and in so doing, broke the cross-type
case: it caused the original LHS-vs-RHS operator to be used to compare
hash table entries too (which of course are all of the RHS type).
This leads to C functions being passed a Datum that is not of the
type they expect, with the usual hazards of crashes and unauthorized
server memory disclosure.
For the set of hashable cross-type operators present in v11 core
Postgres, this bug is nearly harmless on 64-bit machines, which
may explain why it escaped earlier detection. But it is a live
security hazard on 32-bit machines; and of course there may be
extensions that add more hashable cross-type operators, which
would increase the risk.
Reported by Andreas Seltenreich. Back-patch to v11 where the
problem came in.
Security: CVE-2019-10209
|
|
Otherwise the executor can't see trigger transition tables during
EPQ evaluation. Fixes bug #15900 and almost certainly also #15720.
Back-patch to 10, where trigger transition tables landed.
Author: Alex Aktsipetrov
Reviewed-by: Thomas Munro, Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15900-bc482754fe8d7415%40postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15720-38c2b29e5d720187%40postgresql.org
|
|
The stated reason for acquiring predicate locks on heap pages hasn't
existed since commit c01262a8, so fix the comment. Perhaps in a later
release we'll also be able to change the code to use tuple locks.
Back-patch all the way.
Reviewed-by: Ashwin Agrawal
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D2GK3FVdnt5V3d%2Bh9njWipCv_fNL%3DwjxyUhzsF%3D0PcbNg%40mail.gmail.com
|
|
When this code was initially introduced in commit d1b7c1ff, the structure
used was SharedPlanStateInstrumentation, but later when it got changed to
Instrumentation structure in commit b287df70, we forgot to update the
comment.
Reported-by: Wu Fei
Author: Wu Fei
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 9.6
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/52E6E0843B9D774C8C73D6CF64402F0562215EB2@G08CNEXMBPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local
|
|
When there were duplicate columns in the hash key list, the array
sizes could be miscomputed, resulting in access off the end of the
array. Adjust the computation to ensure the array is always large
enough.
(I considered whether the duplicates could be removed in planning, but
I can't rule out the possibility that duplicate columns might have
different hash functions assigned. Simpler to just make sure it works
at execution time regardless.)
Bug apparently introduced in fc4b3dea2 as part of narrowing down the
tuples stored in the hashtable. Reported by Colm McHugh of Salesforce,
though I didn't use their patch. Backpatch back to version 10 where
the bug was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFeeJoKKu0u+A_A9R9316djW-YW3-+Gtgvy3ju655qRHR3jtdA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
For partial aggregation combine steps,
AggStatePerTrans->numTransInputs was set to the transition function's
number of inputs, rather than the combine function's number of
inputs (always 1).
That lead to partial aggregates with strict combine functions to
wrongly check for NOT NULL input as required by strictness. When the
aggregate wasn't exactly passed one argument, the strictness check was
either omitted (in the 0 args case) or too many arguments were
checked. In the latter case we'd read beyond the end of
FunctionCallInfoData->args (only in master).
AggStatePerTrans->numTransInputs actually has been wrong since since
9.6, where partial aggregates were added. But it turns out to not be
an active problem in 9.6 and 10, because numTransInputs wasn't used at
all for combine functions: Before c253b722f6 there simply was no NULL
check for the input to strict trans functions, and after that the
check was simply hardcoded for the right offset in fcinfo, as it's
done by code specific to combine functions.
In bf6c614a2f2 (11) the strictness check was generalized, with common
code doing the strictness checks for both plain and combine transition
functions, based on numTransInputs. For combine functions this lead to
not emitting an expression step to check for strict input in the 0
arguments case, and in the > 1 arguments case, we'd check too many
arguments.Due to the fact that the relevant fcinfo->isnull[2..] was
always zero-initialized (more or less by accident, by being part of
the AggStatePerTrans struct, which is palloc0'ed), there was no
observable damage in the latter case before a9c35cf85ca1f, we just
checked too many array elements.
Due to the changes in a9c35cf85ca1f, > 1 argument bug became visible,
because these days fcinfo is a) dynamically allocated without being
zeroed b) exactly the length required for the number of specified
arguments (hardcoded to 2 in this case).
This commit only contains a fairly minimal fix, setting numTransInputs
to a hardcoded 1 when building a pertrans for a combine function. It
seems likely that we'll want to clean this up further (e.g. the
arguments build_pertrans_for_aggref() aren't particularly meaningful
for combine functions). But the wrap date for 12 beta1 is coming up
fast, so it seems good to have a minimal fix in place.
Backpatch to 11. While AggStatePerTrans->numTransInputs was set
wrongly before that, the value was not used for combine functions.
Reported-By: Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
Diagnosed-By: Kyotaro Horiguchi, Jeevan Chalke, Andres Freund, David Rowley
Author: David Rowley, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6=uZEyWyLw0N7HtR9OBc-sWEFeByEZC7t-KDf15FKxVew@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Previously, gen_partprune_steps() always built executor pruning steps
using all suitable clauses, including those containing PARAM_EXEC
Params. This meant that the pruning steps were only completely safe
for executor run-time (scan start) pruning. To prune at executor
startup, we had to ignore the steps involving exec Params. But this
doesn't really work in general, since there may be logic changes
needed as well --- for example, pruning according to the last operator's
btree strategy is the wrong thing if we're not applying that operator.
The rules embodied in gen_partprune_steps() and its minions are
sufficiently complicated that tracking their incremental effects in
other logic seems quite impractical.
Short of a complete redesign, the only safe fix seems to be to run
gen_partprune_steps() twice, once to create executor startup pruning
steps and then again for run-time pruning steps. We can save a few
cycles however by noting during the first scan whether we rejected
any clauses because they involved exec Params --- if not, we don't
need to do the second scan.
In support of this, refactor the internal APIs in partprune.c to make
more use of passing information in the GeneratePruningStepsContext
struct, rather than as separate arguments.
This is, I hope, the last piece of our response to a bug report from
Alan Jackson. Back-patch to v11 where this code came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/FAD28A83-AC73-489E-A058-2681FA31D648@tvsquared.com
|
|
With correctly crafted DDLs, this could lead to disclosure of arbitrary
backend memory a user may have no right to access. This impacts only
REL_11_STABLE, as the issue has been introduced by 34295b8.
On HEAD, add regression tests to cover this issue in the future.
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Noah Misch
Security: CVE-2019-10129
|
|
HoldPinnedPortals() did things in the wrong order: it must not mark
a portal autoHeld until it's been successfully held. Otherwise,
a failure while persisting the portal results in a server crash
because we think the portal is in a good state when it's not.
Also add a check that portal->status is READY before attempting to
hold a pinned portal. We have such a check before the only other
use of HoldPortal(), so it seems unwise not to check it here.
Lastly, rethink the responsibility for where to call HoldPinnedPortals.
The comment for it imagined that it was optional for any individual PL
to call it or not, but that cannot be the case: if some outer level of
procedure has a pinned portal, failing to persist it when an inner
procedure commits is going to be trouble. Let's have SPI do it instead
of the individual PLs. That's not a complete solution, since in theory
a PL might not be using SPI to perform commit/rollback, but such a PL
is going to have to be aware of lots of related requirements anyway.
(This change doesn't cause an API break for any external PLs that might
be calling HoldPinnedPortals per the old regime, because calling it
twice during a commit or rollback sequence won't hurt.)
Per bug #15703 from Julian Schauder. Back-patch to v11 where this code
came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15703-c12c5bc0ea34ba26@postgresql.org
|
|
The es_root_result_relations array needs to be shallow-copied in the
same way as the main es_result_relations array, else EPQ rechecks on
partitioned result relations fail, as seen in bug #15677 from
Norbert Benkocs.
Amit Langote, isolation test case added by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15677-0bf089579b4cd02d@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/19321.1554567786@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
When trying to insert a tuple into a partitioned table, the routing to
the correct partition has been messed up by mixing when a tuple needs to
be stored in an intermediate parent's slot and when a tuple needs to be
converted because of attribute changes between the immediate parent
relation and the parent relation one level above that (the grandparent).
This could trigger errors like the following:
ERROR: cannot extract attribute from empty tuple slot SQL state: XX000
This was not detected because regression tests with dropped attributes
only included tests with two levels of partitioning, and this can be
triggered with three levels or more.
This fixes bug #15733, which has been introduced by 34295b8. The bug
happens only on REL_11_STABLE and HEAD gains the regression tests added
for this bug.
Reported-by: Petr Fedorov
Author: Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15733-7692379e310b80ec@postgresql.org
|
|
This uses the facility added in the preceding commit to fix
performance issues caused by rebuilding the hashtable (with its
comparator expression being the most expensive bit), after every
reset. That's especially important when the comparator is JIT
compiled.
Bug: #15592 #15486
Reported-By: Jakub Janeček, Dmitry Marakasov
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/15486-05850f065da42931@postgresql.org
https://postgr.es/m/20190114180423.ywhdg2iagzvh43we@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 11, where I broke this in bf6c614a2f2c5
|
|
This has the advantage that the comparator expression, the table's
slot, etc do not have to be rebuilt. Additionally the simplehash.h
hashtable within the tuple hashtable now keeps its previous size and
doesn't need to be reallocated. That both reduces allocator overhead,
and improves performance in cases where the input estimation was off
by a significant factor.
To avoid an API/ABI break, the new parameter is exposed via the new
BuildTupleHashTableExt(), and BuildTupleHashTable() now is a wrapper
around the former, that continues to allocate the table itself in the
tablecxt.
Using this fixes performance issues discovered in the two bugs
referenced. This commit however has not converted the callers, that's
done in a separate commit.
Bug: #15592 #15486
Reported-By: Jakub Janeček, Dmitry Marakasov
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/15486-05850f065da42931@postgresql.org
https://postgr.es/m/20190114180423.ywhdg2iagzvh43we@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 11, this is a prerequisite for other fixes
|
|
In bf6c614a2f2c5 I added a expr context to evaluate the grouping
expression. Unfortunately the code I added initialized them while in
the calling context, rather the table context. Additionally, I used
CreateExprContext() rather than CreateStandaloneExprContext(), which
creates the econtext in the estate's query context.
Fix that by using CreateStandaloneExprContext when in the table's
tablecxt. As we rely on the memory being freed by a memory context
reset that means that the econtext's shutdown callbacks aren't being
called, but that seems ok as the expressions are tightly controlled
due to ExecBuildGroupingEqual().
Bug: #15592
Reported-By: Dmitry Marakasov
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190114222838.h6r3fuyxjxkykf6t@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 11, where I broke this in bf6c614a2f2c5
|
|
Spotted mostly by Fabien Coelho.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/alpine.DEB.2.21.1901230947050.16643@lancre
|
|
The issue the comment is referring to was fixed by
08859bb5c2cebc132629ca838113d27bb31b990c.
|
|
With run-time partition pruning, there is no longer necessarily an
executor node for each corresponding plan node.
Author: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
|
|
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMkU=1xTHkS6d0iptCWykHc1Xrh3LBic_gZDo3JzDYru815fLQ@mail.gmail.com
|
|
This only became a problem with 4c640f4f38, which didn't synchronize
the value agg_strict_input_check.nargs is set to, with the guard
condition for emitting the operation.
Besides such instructions being unnecessary overhead, currently the
LLVM JIT provider doesn't support them. It seems more sensible to
avoid generating such instruction than supporting them. Add assertions
to make it easier to debug a potential further occurance.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2a505161-2727-2473-7c46-591ed108ac52@email.cz
Backpatch: 11-, like 4c640f4f38.
|
|
I (Andres) broke this unintentionally in 69c3936a14, by checking
strictness for all input expressions computed for an aggregate, rather
than just the input for the aggregate transition function.
Reported-By: Ondřej Bouda
Bisected-By: Tom Lane
Diagnosed-By: Andrew Gierth
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2a505161-2727-2473-7c46-591ed108ac52@email.cz
Backpatch: 11-, like 69c3936a14
|
|
NULL keys in left joins were skipped when building batch files.
Repair, by making the keep_nulls argument to ExecHashGetHashValue()
depend on whether this is a left outer join, as we do in other
paths.
Bug #15475. Thinko in 1804284042e. Back-patch to 11.
Reported-by: Paul Schaap
Diagnosed-by: Andrew Gierth
Dicussion: https://postgr.es/m/15475-11a7a783fed72a36%40postgresql.org
|
|
An array-type coercion appearing within a CASE that has a constant
(after const-folding) test expression was mangled by the planner, causing
all the elements of the resulting array to be equal to the coerced value
of the CASE's test expression. This is my oversight in commit c12d570fa:
that changed ArrayCoerceExpr to use a subexpression involving a
CaseTestExpr, and I didn't notice that eval_const_expressions needed an
adjustment to keep from folding such a CaseTestExpr to a constant when
it's inside a suitable CASE.
This is another in what's getting to be a depressingly long line of bugs
associated with misidentification of the referent of a CaseTestExpr.
We're overdue to redesign that mechanism; but any such fix is unlikely
to be back-patchable into v11. As a stopgap, fix eval_const_expressions
to do what it must here. Also add a bunch of comments pointing out the
restrictions and assumptions that are needed to make this work at all.
Also fix a related oversight: contain_context_dependent_node() was not
aware of the relationship of ArrayCoerceExpr to CaseTestExpr. That was
somewhat fail-soft, in that the outcome of a wrong answer would be to
prevent optimizations that could have been made, but let's fix it while
we're at it.
Per bug #15471 from Matt Williams. Back-patch to v11 where the faulty
logic came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15471-1117f49271989bad@postgresql.org
|
|
Per discussion, this behavior seems less astonishing than not doing so.
Peter Eisentraut and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180920234040.GC29981@momjian.us
|
|
Historically we forbade datatype-specific comparison functions from
returning INT_MIN, so that it would be safe to invert the sort order
just by negating the comparison result. However, this was never
really safe for comparison functions that directly return the result
of memcmp(), strcmp(), etc, as POSIX doesn't place any such restriction
on those library functions. Buildfarm results show that at least on
recent Linux on s390x, memcmp() actually does return INT_MIN sometimes,
causing sort failures.
The agreed-on answer is to remove this restriction and fix relevant
call sites to not make such an assumption; code such as "res = -res"
should be replaced by "INVERT_COMPARE_RESULT(res)". The same is needed
in a few places that just directly negated the result of memcmp or
strcmp.
To help find places having this problem, I've also added a compile option
to nbtcompare.c that causes some of the commonly used comparators to
return INT_MIN/INT_MAX instead of their usual -1/+1. It'd likely be
a good idea to have at least one buildfarm member running with
"-DSTRESS_SORT_INT_MIN". That's far from a complete test of course,
but it should help to prevent fresh introductions of such bugs.
This is a longstanding portability hazard, so back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180928185215.ffoq2xrq5d3pafna@alap3.anarazel.de
|
|
I (Andres) was more than a bit hasty in committing 33001fd7a7072d48327
after last minute changes, leading to a number of problems (jit output
was only shown for JIT in parallel workers, and just EXPLAIN without
ANALYZE didn't work). Lukas luckily found these issues quickly.
Instead of combining instrumentation in in standard_ExecutorEnd(), do
so on demand in the new ExplainPrintJITSummary().
Also update a documentation example of the JIT output, changed in
52050ad8ebec8d831.
Author: Lukas Fittl, with minor changes by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAP53PkxmgJht69pabxBXJBM+0oc6kf3KHMborLP7H2ouJ0CCtQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 11, where JIT compilation was introduced
|
|
The documented shortcoming was actually fixed in 4c728f3829
so the comment is not true anymore.
|
|
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-
|
|
In a case where we have multiple relation-scan nodes in a cursor plan,
such as a scan of an inheritance tree, it's possible to fetch from a
given scan node, then rewind the cursor and fetch some row from an
earlier scan node. In such a case, execCurrent.c mistakenly thought
that the later scan node was still active, because ExecReScan hadn't
done anything to make it look not-active. We'd get some sort of
failure in the case of a SeqScan node, because the node's scan tuple
slot would be pointing at a HeapTuple whose t_self gets reset to
invalid by heapam.c. But it seems possible that for other relation
scan node types we'd actually return a valid tuple TID to the caller,
resulting in updating or deleting a tuple that shouldn't have been
considered current. To fix, forcibly clear the ScanTupleSlot in
ExecScanReScan.
Another issue here, which seems only latent at the moment but could
easily become a live bug in future, is that rewinding a cursor does
not necessarily lead to *immediately* applying ExecReScan to every
scan-level node in the plan tree. Upper-level nodes will think that
they can postpone that call if their child node is already marked
with chgParam flags. I don't see a way for that to happen today in
a plan tree that's simple enough for execCurrent.c's search_plan_tree
to understand, but that's one heck of a fragile assumption. So, add
some logic in search_plan_tree to detect chgParam flags being set on
nodes that it descended to/through, and assume that that means we
should consider lower scan nodes to be logically reset even if their
ReScan call hasn't actually happened yet.
Per bug #15395 from Matvey Arye. This has been broken for a long time,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/153764171023.14986.280404050547008575@wrigleys.postgresql.org
|
|
The original coding for XMLTABLE thought it could represent a default
namespace by a T_String Value node with a null string pointer. That's
not okay, though; in particular outfuncs.c/readfuncs.c are not on board
with such a representation, meaning you'll get a null pointer crash
if you try to store a view or rule containing this construct.
To fix, change the parsetree representation so that we have a NULL
list element, instead of a bogus Value node.
This isn't really a functional limitation since default XML namespaces
aren't yet implemented in the executor; you'd just get "DEFAULT
namespace is not supported" anyway. But crashes are not nice, so
back-patch to v10 where this syntax was added. Ordinarily we'd consider
a parsetree representation change to be un-backpatchable; but since
existing releases would crash on the way to storing such constructs,
there can't be any existing views/rules to be incompatible with.
Per report from Andrey Lepikhov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3690074f-abd2-56a9-144a-aa5545d7a291@postgrespro.ru
|
|
The EvalPlanQual machinery assumes that any initplans (that is,
uncorrelated sub-selects) used during an EPQ recheck would have already
been evaluated during the main query; this is implicit in the fact that
execPlan pointers are not copied into the EPQ estate's es_param_exec_vals.
But it's possible for that assumption to fail, if the initplan is only
reached conditionally. For example, a sub-select inside a CASE expression
could be reached during a recheck when it had not been previously, if the
CASE test depends on a column that was just updated.
This bug is old, appearing to date back to my rewrite of EvalPlanQual in
commit 9f2ee8f28, but was not detected until Kyle Samson reported a case.
To fix, force all not-yet-evaluated initplans used within the EPQ plan
subtree to be evaluated at the start of the recheck, before entering the
EPQ environment. This could be inefficient, if such an initplan is
expensive and goes unused again during the recheck --- but that's piling
one layer of improbability atop another. It doesn't seem worth adding
more complexity to prevent that, at least not in the back branches.
It was convenient to use the new-in-v11 ExecEvalParamExecParams function
to implement this, but I didn't like either its name or the specifics of
its API, so revise that.
Back-patch all the way. Rather than rewrite the patch to avoid depending
on bms_next_member() in the oldest branches, I chose to back-patch that
function into 9.4 and 9.3. (This isn't the first time back-patches have
needed that, and it exhausted my patience.) I also chose to back-patch
some test cases added by commits 71404af2a and 342a1ffa2 into 9.4 and 9.3,
so that the 9.x versions of eval-plan-qual.spec are all the same.
Andrew Gierth diagnosed the problem and contributed the added test cases,
though the actual code changes are by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/A033A40A-B234-4324-BE37-272279F7B627@tripadvisor.com
|
|
There's no reason to expose the struct definition, so don't.
Author: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d3fa24c1-bc65-7133-81df-6474387ccc4f@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
