summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/backend/optimizer/plan/createplan.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2019-08-12Rationalize use of list_concat + list_copy combinations.Tom Lane
In the wake of commit 1cff1b95a, the result of list_concat no longer shares the ListCells of the second input. Therefore, we can replace "list_concat(x, list_copy(y))" with just "list_concat(x, y)". To improve call sites that were list_copy'ing the first argument, or both arguments, invent "list_concat_copy()" which produces a new list sharing no ListCells with either input. (This is a bit faster than "list_concat(list_copy(x), y)" because it makes the result list the right size to start with.) In call sites that were not list_copy'ing the second argument, the new semantics mean that we are usually leaking the second List's storage, since typically there is no remaining pointer to it. We considered inventing another list_copy variant that would list_free the second input, but concluded that for most call sites it isn't worth worrying about, given the relative compactness of the new List representation. (Note that in cases where such leakage would happen, the old code already leaked the second List's header; so we're only discussing the size of the leak not whether there is one. I did adjust two or three places that had been troubling to free that header so that they manually free the whole second List.) Patch by me; thanks to David Rowley for review. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11587.1550975080@sss.pgh.pa.us
2019-08-02Fix representation of hash keys in Hash/HashJoin nodes.Andres Freund
In 5f32b29c1819 I changed the creation of HashState.hashkeys to actually use HashState as the parent (instead of HashJoinState, which was incorrect, as they were executed below HashState), to fix the problem of hashkeys expressions otherwise relying on slot types appropriate for HashJoinState, rather than HashState as would be correct. That reliance was only introduced in 12, which is why it previously worked to use HashJoinState as the parent (although I'd be unsurprised if there were problematic cases). Unfortunately that's not a sufficient solution, because before this commit, the to-be-hashed expressions referenced inner/outer as appropriate for the HashJoin, not Hash. That didn't have obvious bad consequences, because the slots containing the tuples were put into ecxt_innertuple when hashing a tuple for HashState (even though Hash doesn't have an inner plan). There are less common cases where this can cause visible problems however (rather than just confusion when inspecting such executor trees). E.g. "ERROR: bogus varno: 65000", when explaining queries containing a HashJoin where the subsidiary Hash node's hash keys reference a subplan. While normally hashkeys aren't displayed by EXPLAIN, if one of those expressions references a subplan, that subplan may be printed as part of the Hash node - which then failed because an inner plan was referenced, and Hash doesn't have that. It seems quite possible that there's other broken cases, too. Fix the problem by properly splitting the expression for the HashJoin and Hash nodes at plan time, and have them reference the proper subsidiary node. While other workarounds are possible, fixing this correctly seems easy enough. It was a pretty ugly hack to have ExecInitHashJoin put the expression into the already initialized HashState, in the first place. I decided to not just split inner/outer hashkeys inside make_hashjoin(), but also to separate out hashoperators and hashcollations at plan time. Otherwise we would have ended up having two very similar loops, one at plan time and the other during executor startup. The work seems to more appropriately belong to plan time, anyway. Reported-By: Nikita Glukhov, Alexander Korotkov Author: Andres Freund Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, in an earlier version Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdvGVegF_TKKRiBrSmatJL2dR9uwFCuR+teQ_8tEXU8mxg@mail.gmail.com Backpatch: 12-
2019-07-15Represent Lists as expansible arrays, not chains of cons-cells.Tom Lane
Originally, Postgres Lists were a more or less exact reimplementation of Lisp lists, which consist of chains of separately-allocated cons cells, each having a value and a next-cell link. We'd hacked that once before (commit d0b4399d8) to add a separate List header, but the data was still in cons cells. That makes some operations -- notably list_nth() -- O(N), and it's bulky because of the next-cell pointers and per-cell palloc overhead, and it's very cache-unfriendly if the cons cells end up scattered around rather than being adjacent. In this rewrite, we still have List headers, but the data is in a resizable array of values, with no next-cell links. Now we need at most two palloc's per List, and often only one, since we can allocate some values in the same palloc call as the List header. (Of course, extending an existing List may require repalloc's to enlarge the array. But this involves just O(log N) allocations not O(N).) Of course this is not without downsides. The key difficulty is that addition or deletion of a list entry may now cause other entries to move, which it did not before. For example, that breaks foreach() and sister macros, which historically used a pointer to the current cons-cell as loop state. We can repair those macros transparently by making their actual loop state be an integer list index; the exposed "ListCell *" pointer is no longer state carried across loop iterations, but is just a derived value. (In practice, modern compilers can optimize things back to having just one loop state value, at least for simple cases with inline loop bodies.) In principle, this is a semantics change for cases where the loop body inserts or deletes list entries ahead of the current loop index; but I found no such cases in the Postgres code. The change is not at all transparent for code that doesn't use foreach() but chases lists "by hand" using lnext(). The largest share of such code in the backend is in loops that were maintaining "prev" and "next" variables in addition to the current-cell pointer, in order to delete list cells efficiently using list_delete_cell(). However, we no longer need a previous-cell pointer to delete a list cell efficiently. Keeping a next-cell pointer doesn't work, as explained above, but we can improve matters by changing such code to use a regular foreach() loop and then using the new macro foreach_delete_current() to delete the current cell. (This macro knows how to update the associated foreach loop's state so that no cells will be missed in the traversal.) There remains a nontrivial risk of code assuming that a ListCell * pointer will remain good over an operation that could now move the list contents. To help catch such errors, list.c can be compiled with a new define symbol DEBUG_LIST_MEMORY_USAGE that forcibly moves list contents whenever that could possibly happen. This makes list operations significantly more expensive so it's not normally turned on (though it is on by default if USE_VALGRIND is on). There are two notable API differences from the previous code: * lnext() now requires the List's header pointer in addition to the current cell's address. * list_delete_cell() no longer requires a previous-cell argument. These changes are somewhat unfortunate, but on the other hand code using either function needs inspection to see if it is assuming anything it shouldn't, so it's not all bad. Programmers should be aware of these significant performance changes: * list_nth() and related functions are now O(1); so there's no major access-speed difference between a list and an array. * Inserting or deleting a list element now takes time proportional to the distance to the end of the list, due to moving the array elements. (However, it typically *doesn't* require palloc or pfree, so except in long lists it's probably still faster than before.) Notably, lcons() used to be about the same cost as lappend(), but that's no longer true if the list is long. Code that uses lcons() and list_delete_first() to maintain a stack might usefully be rewritten to push and pop at the end of the list rather than the beginning. * There are now list_insert_nth...() and list_delete_nth...() functions that add or remove a list cell identified by index. These have the data-movement penalty explained above, but there's no search penalty. * list_concat() and variants now copy the second list's data into storage belonging to the first list, so there is no longer any sharing of cells between the input lists. The second argument is now declared "const List *" to reflect that it isn't changed. This patch just does the minimum needed to get the new implementation in place and fix bugs exposed by the regression tests. As suggested by the foregoing, there's a fair amount of followup work remaining to do. Also, the ENABLE_LIST_COMPAT macros are finally removed in this commit. Code using those should have been gone a dozen years ago. Patch by me; thanks to David Rowley, Jesper Pedersen, and others for review. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11587.1550975080@sss.pgh.pa.us
2019-07-01Fix many typos and inconsistenciesMichael Paquier
Author: Alexander Lakhin Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/af27d1b3-a128-9d62-46e0-88f424397f44@gmail.com
2019-05-22Phase 2 pgindent run for v12.Tom Lane
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
2019-05-09Repair issues with faulty generation of merge-append plans.Tom Lane
create_merge_append_plan failed to honor the CP_EXACT_TLIST flag: it would generate the expected targetlist but then it felt free to add resjunk sort targets to it. This demonstrably leads to assertion failures in v11 and HEAD, and it's probably just accidental that we don't see the same in older branches. I've not looked into whether there would be any real-world consequences in non-assert builds. In HEAD, create_append_plan has sprouted the same problem, so fix that too (although we do not have any test cases that seem able to reach that bug). This is an oversight in commit 3fc6e2d7f which invented the CP_EXACT_TLIST flag, so back-patch to 9.6 where that came in. convert_subquery_pathkeys would create pathkeys for subquery output values if they match any EquivalenceClass known in the outer query and are available in the subquery's syntactic targetlist. However, the second part of that condition is wrong, because such values might not appear in the subquery relation's reltarget list, which would mean that they couldn't be accessed above the level of the subquery scan. We must check that they appear in the reltarget list, instead. This can lead to dropping knowledge about the subquery's sort ordering, but I believe it's okay, because any sort key that the outer query actually has any interest in would appear in the reltarget list. This second issue is of very long standing, but right now there's no evidence that it causes observable problems before 9.6, so I refrained from back-patching further than that. We can revisit that choice if somebody finds a way to make it cause problems in older branches. (Developing useful test cases for these issues is really problematic; fixing convert_subquery_pathkeys removes the only known way to exhibit the create_merge_append_plan bug, and neither of the test cases added by this patch causes a problem in all branches, even when considering the issues separately.) The second issue explains bug #15795 from Suresh Kumar R ("could not find pathkey item to sort" with nested DISTINCT queries). I stumbled across the first issue while investigating that. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15795-fadb56c8e44ee73c@postgresql.org
2019-04-05Use Append rather than MergeAppend for scanning ordered partitions.Tom Lane
If we need ordered output from a scan of a partitioned table, but the ordering matches the partition ordering, then we don't need to use a MergeAppend to combine the pre-ordered per-partition scan results: a plain Append will produce the same results. This both saves useless comparison work inside the MergeAppend proper, and allows us to start returning tuples after istarting up just the first child node not all of them. However, all is not peaches and cream, because if some of the child nodes have high startup costs then there will be big discontinuities in the tuples-returned-versus-elapsed-time curve. The planner's cost model cannot handle that (yet, anyway). If we model the Append's startup cost as being just the first child's startup cost, we may drastically underestimate the cost of fetching slightly more tuples than are available from the first child. Since we've had bad experiences with over-optimistic choices of "fast start" plans for ORDER BY LIMIT queries, that seems scary. As a klugy workaround, set the startup cost estimate for an ordered Append to be the sum of its children's startup costs (as MergeAppend would). This doesn't really describe reality, but it's less likely to cause a bad plan choice than an underestimated startup cost would. In practice, the cases where we really care about this optimization will have child plans that are IndexScans with zero startup cost, so that the overly conservative estimate is still just zero. David Rowley, reviewed by Julien Rouhaud and Antonin Houska Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f-hAqhPLRk_RaSFTgYxd=Tz5hA7kQ2h4-DhJufQk8TGuw@mail.gmail.com
2019-03-30Generated columnsPeter Eisentraut
This is an SQL-standard feature that allows creating columns that are computed from expressions rather than assigned, similar to a view or materialized view but on a column basis. This implements one kind of generated column: stored (computed on write). Another kind, virtual (computed on read), is planned for the future, and some room is left for it. Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> Reviewed-by: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b151f851-4019-bdb1-699e-ebab07d2f40a@2ndquadrant.com
2019-03-25Suppress Append and MergeAppend plan nodes that have a single child.Tom Lane
If there's only one child relation, the Append or MergeAppend isn't doing anything useful, and can be elided. It does have a purpose during planning though, which is to serve as a buffer between parent and child Var numbering. Therefore we keep it all the way through to setrefs.c, and get rid of it only after fixing references in the plan level(s) above it. This works largely the same as setrefs.c's ancient hack to get rid of no-op SubqueryScan nodes, and can even share some code with that. Note the change to make setrefs.c use apply_tlist_labeling rather than ad-hoc code. This has the effect of propagating the child's resjunk and ressortgroupref labels, which formerly weren't propagated when removing a SubqueryScan. Doing that is demonstrably necessary for the [Merge]Append cases, and seems harmless for SubqueryScan, if only because trivial_subqueryscan is afraid to collapse cases where the resjunk marking differs. (I suspect that restriction could now be removed, though it's unclear that it'd make any new matches possible, since the outer query can't have references to a child resjunk column.) David Rowley, reviewed by Alvaro Herrera and Tomas Vondra Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f_7u8ATyJ1JGTMHFoKDvZdeF-iEBhs+sM_SXowOr9cArg@mail.gmail.com
2019-03-22Collations with nondeterministic comparisonPeter Eisentraut
This adds a flag "deterministic" to collations. If that is false, such a collation disables various optimizations that assume that strings are equal only if they are byte-wise equal. That then allows use cases such as case-insensitive or accent-insensitive comparisons or handling of strings with different Unicode normal forms. This functionality is only supported with the ICU provider. At least glibc doesn't appear to have any locales that work in a nondeterministic way, so it's not worth supporting this for the libc provider. The term "deterministic comparison" in this context is from Unicode Technical Standard #10 (https://unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Deterministic_Comparison). This patch makes changes in three areas: - CREATE COLLATION DDL changes and system catalog changes to support this new flag. - Many executor nodes and auxiliary code are extended to track collations. Previously, this code would just throw away collation information, because the eventually-called user-defined functions didn't use it since they only cared about equality, which didn't need collation information. - String data type functions that do equality comparisons and hashing are changed to take the (non-)deterministic flag into account. For comparison, this just means skipping various shortcuts and tie breakers that use byte-wise comparison. For hashing, we first need to convert the input string to a canonical "sort key" using the ICU analogue of strxfrm(). Reviewed-by: Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org> Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1ccc668f-4cbc-0bef-af67-450b47cdfee7@2ndquadrant.com
2019-03-07Fix handling of targetlist SRFs when scan/join relation is known empty.Tom Lane
When we introduced separate ProjectSetPath nodes for application of set-returning functions in v10, we inadvertently broke some cases where we're supposed to recognize that the result of a subquery is known to be empty (contain zero rows). That's because IS_DUMMY_REL was just looking for a childless AppendPath without allowing for a ProjectSetPath being possibly stuck on top. In itself, this didn't do anything much worse than produce slightly worse plans for some corner cases. Then in v11, commit 11cf92f6e rearranged things to allow the scan/join targetlist to be applied directly to partial paths before they get gathered. But it inserted a short-circuit path for dummy relations that was a little too short: it failed to insert a ProjectSetPath node at all for a targetlist containing set-returning functions, resulting in bogus "set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set" errors, as reported in bug #15669 from Madelaine Thibaut. The best way to fix this mess seems to be to reimplement IS_DUMMY_REL so that it drills down through any ProjectSetPath nodes that might be there (and it seems like we'd better allow for ProjectionPath as well). While we're at it, make it look at rel->pathlist not cheapest_total_path, so that it gives the right answer independently of whether set_cheapest has been done lately. That dependency looks pretty shaky in the context of code like apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths, and even if it's not broken today it'd certainly bite us at some point. (Nastily, unsafe use of the old coding would almost always work; the hazard comes down to possibly looking through a dangling pointer, and only once in a blue moon would you find something there that resulted in the wrong answer.) It now looks like it was a mistake for IS_DUMMY_REL to be a macro: if there are any extensions using it, they'll continue to use the old inadequate logic until they're recompiled, after which they'll fail to load into server versions predating this fix. Hopefully there are few such extensions. Having fixed IS_DUMMY_REL, the special path for dummy rels in apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths is unnecessary as well as being wrong, so we can just drop it. Also change a few places that were testing for partitioned-ness of a planner relation but not using IS_PARTITIONED_REL for the purpose; that seems unsafe as well as inconsistent, plus it required an ugly hack in apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths. In passing, save a few cycles in apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths by skipping processing of pre-existing paths for partitioned rels, and do some cosmetic cleanup and comment adjustment in that function. I renamed IS_DUMMY_PATH to IS_DUMMY_APPEND with the intention of breaking any code that might be using it, since in almost every case that would be wrong; IS_DUMMY_REL is what to be using instead. In HEAD, also make set_dummy_rel_pathlist static (since it's no longer used from outside allpaths.c), and delete is_dummy_plan, since it's no longer used anywhere. Back-patch as appropriate into v11 and v10. Tom Lane and Julien Rouhaud Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15669-02fb3296cca26203@postgresql.org
2019-02-14Simplify the planner's new representation of indexable clauses a little.Tom Lane
In commit 1a8d5afb0, I thought it'd be a good idea to define IndexClause.indexquals as NIL in the most common case where the given clause (IndexClause.rinfo) is usable exactly as-is. It'd be more consistent to define the indexquals in that case as being a one-element list containing IndexClause.rinfo, but I thought saving the palloc overhead for making such a list would be worthwhile. In hindsight, that was a great example of "premature optimization is the root of all evil": it's complicated everyplace that needs to deal with the indexquals, requiring duplicative code to handle both the simple case and the not-simple case. I'd initially found that tolerable but it's getting less so as I mop up some areas that I'd not touched in 1a8d5afb0. In any case, two more pallocs during a planner run are surely at the noise level (a conclusion confirmed by a bit of microbenchmarking). So let's change this decision before it becomes set in stone, and insist that IndexClause.indexquals always be a valid list of the actual index quals for the clause. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/24586.1550106354@sss.pgh.pa.us
2019-02-09Refactor the representation of indexable clauses in IndexPaths.Tom Lane
In place of three separate but interrelated lists (indexclauses, indexquals, and indexqualcols), an IndexPath now has one list "indexclauses" of IndexClause nodes. This holds basically the same information as before, but in a more useful format: in particular, there is now a clear connection between an indexclause (an original restriction clause from WHERE or JOIN/ON) and the indexquals (directly usable index conditions) derived from it. We also change the ground rules a bit by mandating that clause commutation, if needed, be done up-front so that what is stored in the indexquals list is always directly usable as an index condition. This gets rid of repeated re-determination of which side of the clause is the indexkey during costing and plan generation, as well as repeated lookups of the commutator operator. To minimize the added up-front cost, the typical case of commuting a plain OpExpr is handled by a new special-purpose function commute_restrictinfo(). For RowCompareExprs, generating the new clause properly commuted to begin with is not really any more complex than before, it's just different --- and we can save doing that work twice, as the pretty-klugy original implementation did. Tracking the connection between original and derived clauses lets us also track explicitly whether the derived clauses are an exact or lossy translation of the original. This provides a cheap solution to getting rid of unnecessary rechecks of boolean index clauses, which previously seemed like it'd be more expensive than it was worth. Another pleasant (IMO) side-effect is that EXPLAIN now always shows index clauses with the indexkey on the left; this seems less confusing. This commit leaves expand_indexqual_conditions() and some related functions in a slightly messy state. I didn't bother to change them any more than minimally necessary to work with the new data structure, because all that code is going to be refactored out of existence in a follow-on patch. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22182.1549124950@sss.pgh.pa.us
2019-01-29Refactor planner's header files.Tom Lane
Create a new header optimizer/optimizer.h, which exposes just the planner functions that can be used "at arm's length", without need to access Paths or the other planner-internal data structures defined in nodes/relation.h. This is intended to provide the whole planner API seen by most of the rest of the system; although FDWs still need to use additional stuff, and more thought is also needed about just what selfuncs.c should rely on. The main point of doing this now is to limit the amount of new #include baggage that will be needed by "planner support functions", which I expect to introduce later, and which will be in relevant datatype modules rather than anywhere near the planner. This commit just moves relevant declarations into optimizer.h from other header files (a couple of which go away because everything got moved), and adjusts #include lists to match. There's further cleanup that could be done if we want to decide that some stuff being exposed by optimizer.h doesn't belong in the planner at all, but I'll leave that for another day. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11460.1548706639@sss.pgh.pa.us
2019-01-28In the planner, replace an empty FROM clause with a dummy RTE.Tom Lane
The fact that "SELECT expression" has no base relations has long been a thorn in the side of the planner. It makes it hard to flatten a sub-query that looks like that, or is a trivial VALUES() item, because the planner generally uses relid sets to identify sub-relations, and such a sub-query would have an empty relid set if we flattened it. prepjointree.c contains some baroque logic that works around this in certain special cases --- but there is a much better answer. We can replace an empty FROM clause with a dummy RTE that acts like a table of one row and no columns, and then there are no such corner cases to worry about. Instead we need some logic to get rid of useless dummy RTEs, but that's simpler and covers more cases than what was there before. For really trivial cases, where the query is just "SELECT expression" and nothing else, there's a hazard that adding the extra RTE makes for a noticeable slowdown; even though it's not much processing, there's not that much for the planner to do overall. However testing says that the penalty is very small, close to the noise level. In more complex queries, this is able to find optimizations that we could not find before. The new RTE type is called RTE_RESULT, since the "scan" plan type it gives rise to is a Result node (the same plan we produced for a "SELECT expression" query before). To avoid confusion, rename the old ResultPath path type to GroupResultPath, reflecting that it's only used in degenerate grouping cases where we know the query produces just one grouped row. (It wouldn't work to unify the two cases, because there are different rules about where the associated quals live during query_planner.) Note: although this touches readfuncs.c, I don't think a catversion bump is required, because the added case can't occur in stored rules, only plans. Patch by me, reviewed by David Rowley and Mark Dilger Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15944.1521127664@sss.pgh.pa.us
2019-01-11Avoid sharing PARAM_EXEC slots between different levels of NestLoop.Tom Lane
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
2019-01-02Update copyright for 2019Bruce Momjian
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
2018-12-30Support parameterized TidPaths.Tom Lane
Up to now we've not worried much about joins where the join key is a relation's CTID column, reasoning that storing a table's CTIDs in some other table would be pretty useless. However, there are use-cases for this sort of query involving self-joins, so that argument doesn't really hold water. This patch allows generating plans for joins on CTID that use a nestloop with inner TidScan, similar to what we might do with an index on the join column. This is the most efficient way to join when the outer side of the nestloop is expected to yield relatively few rows. This change requires upgrading tidpath.c and the generated TidPaths to work with RestrictInfos instead of bare qual clauses, but that's long-postponed technical debt anyway. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17443.1545435266@sss.pgh.pa.us
2018-12-12Repair bogus EPQ plans generated for postgres_fdw foreign joins.Tom Lane
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
2018-11-02Fix spelling errors and typos in commentsMagnus Hagander
Author: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
2018-10-07Remove some unnecessary fields from Plan trees.Tom Lane
In the wake of commit f2343653f, we no longer need some fields that were used before to control executor lock acquisitions: * PlannedStmt.nonleafResultRelations can go away entirely. * partitioned_rels can go away from Append, MergeAppend, and ModifyTable. However, ModifyTable still needs to know the RT index of the partition root table if any, which was formerly kept in the first entry of that list. Add a new field "rootRelation" to remember that. rootRelation is partly redundant with nominalRelation, in that if it's set it will have the same value as nominalRelation. However, the latter field has a different purpose so it seems best to keep them distinct. Amit Langote, reviewed by David Rowley and Jesper Pedersen, and whacked around a bit more by me Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
2018-08-01Fix run-time partition pruning for appends with multiple source rels.Tom Lane
The previous coding here supposed that if run-time partitioning applied to a particular Append/MergeAppend plan, then all child plans of that node must be members of a single partitioning hierarchy. This is totally wrong, since an Append could be formed from a UNION ALL: we could have multiple hierarchies sharing the same Append, or child plans that aren't part of any hierarchy. To fix, restructure the related plan-time and execution-time data structures so that we can have a separate list or array for each partitioning hierarchy. Also track subplans that are not part of any hierarchy, and make sure they don't get pruned. Per reports from Phil Florent and others. Back-patch to v11, since the bug originated there. David Rowley, with a lot of cosmetic adjustments by me; thanks also to Amit Langote for review. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/HE1PR03MB17068BB27404C90B5B788BCABA7B0@HE1PR03MB1706.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
2018-07-19Expand run-time partition pruning to work with MergeAppendHeikki Linnakangas
This expands the support for the run-time partition pruning which was added for Append in 499be013de to also allow unneeded subnodes of a MergeAppend to be removed. Author: David Rowley Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKJS1f_F_V8D7Wu-HVdnH7zCUxhoGK8XhLLtd%3DCu85qDZzXrgg%40mail.gmail.com
2018-07-11Fix create_scan_plan's handling of sortgrouprefs for physical tlists.Tom Lane
We should only run apply_pathtarget_labeling_to_tlist if CP_LABEL_TLIST was specified, because only in that case has use_physical_tlist checked that the labeling will succeed; otherwise we may get an "ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in targetlist" error. (This subsumes the previous test about gating_clauses, because we reset "flags" to zero earlier if there are gating clauses to apply.) The only known case in which a failure can occur is with a ProjectSet path directly atop a table scan path, although it seems likely that there are other cases or will be such in future. This means that the failure is currently only visible in the v10 branch: 9.6 didn't have ProjectSet, while in v11 and HEAD, apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths for some weird reason is using create_projection_path not apply_projection_to_path, masking the problem because there's a ProjectionPath in between. Nonetheless this code is clearly wrong on its own terms, so back-patch to 9.6 where this logic was introduced. Per report from Regina Obe. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/001501d40f88$75186950$5f493bf0$@pcorp.us
2018-07-11Fix bugs with degenerate window ORDER BY clauses in GROUPS/RANGE mode.Tom Lane
nodeWindowAgg.c failed to cope with the possibility that no ordering columns are defined in the window frame for GROUPS mode or RANGE OFFSET mode, leading to assertion failures or odd errors, as reported by Masahiko Sawada and Lukas Eder. In RANGE OFFSET mode, an ordering column is really required, so add an Assert about that. In GROUPS mode, the code would work, except that the node initialization code wasn't in sync with the execution code about when to set up tuplestore read pointers and spare slots. Fix the latter for consistency's sake (even though I think the changes described below make the out-of-sync cases unreachable for now). Per SQL spec, a single ordering column is required for RANGE OFFSET mode, and at least one ordering column is required for GROUPS mode. The parser enforced the former but not the latter; add a check for that. We were able to reach the no-ordering-column cases even with fully spec compliant queries, though, because the planner would drop partitioning and ordering columns from the generated plan if they were redundant with earlier columns according to the redundant-pathkey logic, for instance "PARTITION BY x ORDER BY y" in the presence of a "WHERE x=y" qual. While in principle that's an optimization that could save some pointless comparisons at runtime, it seems unlikely to be meaningful in the real world. I think this behavior was not so much an intentional optimization as a side-effect of an ancient decision to construct the plan node's ordering-column info by reverse-engineering the PathKeys of the input path. If we give up redundant-column removal then it takes very little code to generate the plan node info directly from the WindowClause, ensuring that we have the expected number of ordering columns in all cases. (If anyone does complain about this, the planner could perhaps be taught to remove redundant columns only when it's safe to do so, ie *not* in RANGE OFFSET mode. But I doubt anyone ever will.) With these changes, the WindowAggPath.winpathkeys field is not used for anything anymore, so remove it. The test cases added here are not actually very interesting given the removal of the redundant-column-removal logic, but they would represent important corner cases if anyone ever tries to put that back. Tom Lane and Masahiko Sawada. Back-patch to v11 where RANGE OFFSET and GROUPS modes were added. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAD21AoDrWqycq-w_+Bx1cjc+YUhZ11XTj9rfxNiNDojjBx8Fjw@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/153086788677.17476.8002640580496698831@wrigleys.postgresql.org
2018-06-10Relocate partition pruning structs to a saner place.Tom Lane
These struct definitions were originally dropped into primnodes.h, which is a poor choice since that's mainly intended for primitive expression node types; these are not in that category. What they are is auxiliary info in Plan trees, so move them to plannodes.h. For consistency, also relocate some related code that was apparently placed with the aid of a dartboard. There's no interesting code changes in this commit, just reshuffling. David Rowley and Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRBjrufA3ocDm8o4LPGNye9Y+pm1b9kCwode4X04CULG3g@mail.gmail.com
2018-05-16Pass the correct PlannerInfo to PlanForeignModify/PlanDirectModify.Robert Haas
Previously, we passed the toplevel PlannerInfo, but we actually want to pass the relevant subroot. One problem with passing the toplevel PlannerInfo is that the FDW which wants to push down an UPDATE or DELETE against a join won't find the relevant joinrel there. As of commit 1bc0100d270e5bcc980a0629b8726a32a497e788, postgres_fdw tries to do exactly this and can be made to fail an assertion as a result. It's possible that this should be regarded as a bug fix and back-patched to earlier releases, but for lack of a test case that fails in earlier releases, no back-patch for now. Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Amit Langote. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/5AF43E02.30000@lab.ntt.co.jp
2018-04-23Add GUC enable_partition_pruningAlvaro Herrera
This controls both plan-time and execution-time new-style partition pruning. While finer-grain control is possible (maybe using an enum GUC instead of boolean), there doesn't seem to be much need for that. This new parameter controls partition pruning for all queries: trivially, SELECT queries that affect partitioned tables are naturally under its control since they are using the new technology. However, while UPDATE/DELETE queries do not use the new code, we make the new GUC control their behavior also (stealing control from constraint_exclusion), because it is more natural, and it leads to a more natural transition to the future in which those queries will also use the new pruning code. Constraint exclusion still controls pruning for regular inheritance situations (those not involving partitioned tables). Author: David Rowley Review: Amit Langote, Ashutosh Bapat, Justin Pryzby, David G. Johnston Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f_0HwsxJG9m+nzU+CizxSdGtfe6iF_ykPYBiYft302DCw@mail.gmail.com
2018-04-19Fix incorrect handling of join clauses pushed into parameterized paths.Tom Lane
In some cases a clause attached to an outer join can be pushed down into the outer join's RHS even though the clause is not degenerate --- this can happen if we choose to make a parameterized path for the RHS. If the clause ends up attached to a lower outer join, we'd misclassify it as being a "join filter" not a plain "filter" condition at that node, leading to wrong query results. To fix, teach extract_actual_join_clauses to examine each join clause's required_relids, not just its is_pushed_down flag. (The latter now seems vestigial, or at least in need of rethinking, but we won't do anything so invasive as redefining it in a bug-fix patch.) This has been wrong since we introduced parameterized paths in 9.2, though it's evidently hard to hit given the lack of previous reports. The test case used here involves a lateral function call, and I think that a lateral reference may be required to get the planner to select a broken plan; though I wouldn't swear to that. In any case, even if LATERAL is needed to trigger the bug, it still affects all supported branches, so back-patch to all. Per report from Andreas Karlsson. Thanks to Andrew Gierth for preliminary investigation. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f8128b11-c5bf-3539-48cd-234178b2314d@proxel.se
2018-04-12Revert MERGE patchSimon Riggs
This reverts commits d204ef63776b8a00ca220adec23979091564e465, 83454e3c2b28141c0db01c7d2027e01040df5249 and a few more commits thereafter (complete list at the end) related to MERGE feature. While the feature was fully functional, with sufficient test coverage and necessary documentation, it was felt that some parts of the executor and parse-analyzer can use a different design and it wasn't possible to do that in the available time. So it was decided to revert the patch for PG11 and retry again in the future. Thanks again to all reviewers and bug reporters. List of commits reverted, in reverse chronological order: f1464c5380 Improve parse representation for MERGE ddb4158579 MERGE syntax diagram correction 530e69e59b Allow cpluspluscheck to pass by renaming variable 01b88b4df5 MERGE minor errata 3af7b2b0d4 MERGE fix variable warning in non-assert builds a5d86181ec MERGE INSERT allows only one VALUES clause 4b2d44031f MERGE post-commit review 4923550c20 Tab completion for MERGE aa3faa3c7a WITH support in MERGE 83454e3c2b New files for MERGE d204ef6377 MERGE SQL Command following SQL:2016 Author: Pavan Deolasee Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
2018-04-07Support partition pruning at execution timeAlvaro Herrera
Existing partition pruning is only able to work at plan time, for query quals that appear in the parsed query. This is good but limiting, as there can be parameters that appear later that can be usefully used to further prune partitions. This commit adds support for pruning subnodes of Append which cannot possibly contain any matching tuples, during execution, by evaluating Params to determine the minimum set of subnodes that can possibly match. We support more than just simple Params in WHERE clauses. Support additionally includes: 1. Parameterized Nested Loop Joins: The parameter from the outer side of the join can be used to determine the minimum set of inner side partitions to scan. 2. Initplans: Once an initplan has been executed we can then determine which partitions match the value from the initplan. Partition pruning is performed in two ways. When Params external to the plan are found to match the partition key we attempt to prune away unneeded Append subplans during the initialization of the executor. This allows us to bypass the initialization of non-matching subplans meaning they won't appear in the EXPLAIN or EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. For parameters whose value is only known during the actual execution then the pruning of these subplans must wait. Subplans which are eliminated during this stage of pruning are still visible in the EXPLAIN output. In order to determine if pruning has actually taken place, the EXPLAIN ANALYZE must be viewed. If a certain Append subplan was never executed due to the elimination of the partition then the execution timing area will state "(never executed)". Whereas, if, for example in the case of parameterized nested loops, the number of loops stated in the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for certain subplans may appear lower than others due to the subplan having been scanned fewer times. This is due to the list of matching subnodes having to be evaluated whenever a parameter which was found to match the partition key changes. This commit required some additional infrastructure that permits the building of a data structure which is able to perform the translation of the matching partition IDs, as returned by get_matching_partitions, into the list index of a subpaths list, as exist in node types such as Append, MergeAppend and ModifyTable. This allows us to translate a list of clauses into a Bitmapset of all the subpath indexes which must be included to satisfy the clause list. Author: David Rowley, based on an earlier effort by Beena Emerson Reviewers: Amit Langote, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Jesper Pedersen Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApE16ac-_VVZVvv0gePSgkg_BwYEV1NBqZFqDR2bBE0X0A@mail.gmail.com
2018-04-03MERGE SQL Command following SQL:2016Simon Riggs
MERGE performs actions that modify rows in the target table using a source table or query. MERGE provides a single SQL statement that can conditionally INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE rows a task that would other require multiple PL statements. e.g. MERGE INTO target AS t USING source AS s ON t.tid = s.sid WHEN MATCHED AND t.balance > s.delta THEN UPDATE SET balance = t.balance - s.delta WHEN MATCHED THEN DELETE WHEN NOT MATCHED AND s.delta > 0 THEN INSERT VALUES (s.sid, s.delta) WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN DO NOTHING; MERGE works with regular and partitioned tables, including column and row security enforcement, as well as support for row, statement and transition triggers. MERGE is optimized for OLTP and is parameterizable, though also useful for large scale ETL/ELT. MERGE is not intended to be used in preference to existing single SQL commands for INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE since there is some overhead. MERGE can be used statically from PL/pgSQL. MERGE does not yet support inheritance, write rules, RETURNING clauses, updatable views or foreign tables. MERGE follows SQL Standard per the most recent SQL:2016. Includes full tests and documentation, including full isolation tests to demonstrate the concurrent behavior. This version written from scratch in 2017 by Simon Riggs, using docs and tests originally written in 2009. Later work from Pavan Deolasee has been both complex and deep, leaving the lead author credit now in his hands. Extensive discussion of concurrency from Peter Geoghegan, with thanks for the time and effort contributed. Various issues reported via sqlsmith by Andreas Seltenreich Authors: Pavan Deolasee, Simon Riggs Reviewer: Peter Geoghegan, Amit Langote, Tomas Vondra, Simon Riggs Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.com https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkJdBuxj9PO=2QaO9-3h3xGbQPZ34kJH=HukRekwM-GZg@mail.gmail.com
2018-04-02Revert "Modified files for MERGE"Simon Riggs
This reverts commit 354f13855e6381d288dfaa52bcd4f2cb0fd4a5eb.
2018-04-02Modified files for MERGESimon Riggs
2018-04-02postgres_fdw: Push down partition-wise aggregation.Robert Haas
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
2018-03-29Teach create_projection_plan to omit projection where possible.Robert Haas
We sometimes insert a ProjectionPath into a plan tree when projection is not strictly required. The existing code already arranges to avoid emitting a Result node when the ProjectionPath's subpath can perform the projection itself, but previously it didn't consider the possibility that the parent node might not actually require the projection to be performed at all. Skipping projection when it's not required can not only avoid Result nodes that aren't needed, but also avoid losing the "physical tlist" optimization unneccessarily. Patch by me, reviewed by Amit Kapila. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoakT5gmahbPWGqrR2nAdFOMAOnOXYoWHRdVfGWs34t6_A@mail.gmail.com
2018-03-22Implement partition-wise grouping/aggregation.Robert Haas
If the partition keys of input relation are part of the GROUP BY clause, all the rows belonging to a given group come from a single partition. This allows aggregation/grouping over a partitioned relation to be broken down * into aggregation/grouping on each partition. This should be no worse, and often better, than the normal approach. If the GROUP BY clause does not contain all the partition keys, we can still perform partial aggregation for each partition and then finalize aggregation after appending the partial results. This is less certain to be a win, but it's still useful. Jeevan Chalke, Ashutosh Bapat, Robert Haas. 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
2018-02-23Fix planner failures with overlapping mergejoin clauses in an outer join.Tom Lane
Given overlapping or partially redundant join clauses, for example t1 JOIN t2 ON t1.a = t2.x AND t1.b = t2.x the planner's EquivalenceClass machinery will ordinarily refactor the clauses as "t1.a = t1.b AND t1.a = t2.x", so that join processing doesn't see multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass in a list of join equality clauses. However, if the join is outer, it's incorrect to derive a restriction clause on the outer side from the join conditions, so the clause refactoring does not happen and we end up with overlapping join conditions. The code that attempted to deal with such cases had several subtle bugs, which could result in "left and right pathkeys do not match in mergejoin" or "outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses" planner errors, if the selected join plan type was a mergejoin. (It does not appear that any actually incorrect plan could have been emitted.) The core of the problem really was failure to recognize that the outer and inner relations' pathkeys have different relationships to the mergeclause list. A join's mergeclause list is constructed by reference to the outer pathkeys, so it will always be ordered the same as the outer pathkeys, but this cannot be presumed true for the inner pathkeys. If the inner sides of the mergeclauses contain multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass ({t2.x} in the above example) then a simplistic rendering of the required inner sort order is like "ORDER BY t2.x, t2.x", but the pathkey machinery recognizes that the second sort column is redundant and throws it away. The mergejoin planning code failed to account for that behavior properly. One error was to try to generate cut-down versions of the mergeclause list from cut-down versions of the inner pathkeys in the same way as the initial construction of the mergeclause list from the outer pathkeys was done; this could lead to choosing a mergeclause list that fails to match the outer pathkeys. The other problem was that the pathkey cross-checking code in create_mergejoin_plan treated the inner and outer pathkey lists identically, whereas actually the expectations for them must be different. That led to false "pathkeys do not match" failures in some cases, and in principle could have led to failure to detect bogus plans in other cases, though there is no indication that such bogus plans could be generated. Reported by Alexander Kuzmenkov, who also reviewed this patch. This has been broken for years (back to around 8.3 according to my testing), so back-patch to all supported branches. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5dad9160-4632-0e47-e120-8e2082000c01@postgrespro.ru
2018-02-07Support all SQL:2011 options for window frame clauses.Tom Lane
This patch adds the ability to use "RANGE offset PRECEDING/FOLLOWING" frame boundaries in window functions. We'd punted on that back in the original patch to add window functions, because it was not clear how to do it in a reasonably data-type-extensible fashion. That problem is resolved here by adding the ability for btree operator classes to provide an "in_range" support function that defines how to add or subtract the RANGE offset value. Factoring it this way also allows the operator class to avoid overflow problems near the ends of the datatype's range, if it wishes to expend effort on that. (In the committed patch, the integer opclasses handle that issue, but it did not seem worth the trouble to avoid overflow failures for datetime types.) The patch includes in_range support for the integer_ops opfamily (int2/int4/int8) as well as the standard datetime types. Support for other numeric types has been requested, but that seems like suitable material for a follow-on patch. In addition, the patch adds GROUPS mode which counts the offset in ORDER-BY peer groups rather than rows, and it adds the frame_exclusion options specified by SQL:2011. As far as I can see, we are now fully up to spec on window framing options. Existing behaviors remain unchanged, except that I changed the errcode for a couple of existing error reports to meet the SQL spec's expectation that negative "offset" values should be reported as SQLSTATE 22013. Internally and in relevant parts of the documentation, we now consistently use the terminology "offset PRECEDING/FOLLOWING" rather than "value PRECEDING/FOLLOWING", since the term "value" is confusingly vague. Oliver Ford, reviewed and whacked around some by me Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGMVOdu9sivPAxbNN0X+q19Sfv9edEPv=HibOJhB14TJv_RCQg@mail.gmail.com
2018-01-28Add stack-overflow guards in set-operation planning.Tom Lane
create_plan_recurse lacked any stack depth check. This is not per our normal coding rules, but I'd supposed it was safe because earlier planner processing is more complex and presumably should eat more stack. But bug #15033 from Andrew Grossman shows this isn't true, at least not for queries having the form of a many-thousand-way INTERSECT stack. Further testing showed that recurse_set_operations is also capable of being crashed in this way, since it likewise will recurse to the bottom of a parsetree before calling any support functions that might themselves contain any stack checks. However, its stack consumption is only perhaps a third of create_plan_recurse's. It's possible that this particular problem with create_plan_recurse can only manifest in 9.6 and later, since before that we didn't build a Path tree for set operations. But having seen this example, I now have no faith in the proposition that create_plan_recurse doesn't need a stack check, so back-patch to all supported branches. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180127050845.28812.58244@wrigleys.postgresql.org
2018-01-19Allow UPDATE to move rows between partitions.Robert Haas
When an UPDATE causes a row to no longer match the partition constraint, try to move it to a different partition where it does match the partition constraint. In essence, the UPDATE is split into a DELETE from the old partition and an INSERT into the new one. This can lead to surprising behavior in concurrency scenarios because EvalPlanQual rechecks won't work as they normally did; the known problems are documented. (There is a pending patch to improve the situation further, but it needs more review.) Amit Khandekar, reviewed and tested by Amit Langote, David Rowley, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Dilip Kumar, Amul Sul, Thomas Munro, Álvaro Herrera, Amit Kapila, and me. A few final revisions by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9do9o2ccQ7j7+tSgiE1REY65XRiMb=yJO3u3QhyP8EEPQ@mail.gmail.com
2018-01-02Update copyright for 2018Bruce Momjian
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
2017-12-22Fix UNION/INTERSECT/EXCEPT over no columns.Tom Lane
Since 9.4, we've allowed the syntax "select union select" and variants of that. However, the planner wasn't expecting a no-column set operation and ended up treating the set operation as if it were UNION ALL. Turns out it's trivial to fix in v10 and later; we just need to be careful about not generating a Sort node with no sort keys. However, since a weird corner case like this is never going to be exercised by developers, we'd better have thorough regression tests if we want to consider it supported. Per report from Victor Yegorov. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGnEbojGJrRSOgJwNGM7JSJZpVAf8xXcVPbVrGdhbVEHZ-BUMw@mail.gmail.com
2017-12-21Add parallel-aware hash joins.Andres Freund
Introduce parallel-aware hash joins that appear in EXPLAIN plans as Parallel Hash Join with Parallel Hash. While hash joins could already appear in parallel queries, they were previously always parallel-oblivious and had a partial subplan only on the outer side, meaning that the work of the inner subplan was duplicated in every worker. After this commit, the planner will consider using a partial subplan on the inner side too, using the Parallel Hash node to divide the work over the available CPU cores and combine its results in shared memory. If the join needs to be split into multiple batches in order to respect work_mem, then workers process different batches as much as possible and then work together on the remaining batches. The advantages of a parallel-aware hash join over a parallel-oblivious hash join used in a parallel query are that it: * avoids wasting memory on duplicated hash tables * avoids wasting disk space on duplicated batch files * divides the work of building the hash table over the CPUs One disadvantage is that there is some communication between the participating CPUs which might outweigh the benefits of parallelism in the case of small hash tables. This is avoided by the planner's existing reluctance to supply partial plans for small scans, but it may be necessary to estimate synchronization costs in future if that situation changes. Another is that outer batch 0 must be written to disk if multiple batches are required. A potential future advantage of parallel-aware hash joins is that right and full outer joins could be supported, since there is a single set of matched bits for each hashtable, but that is not yet implemented. A new GUC enable_parallel_hash is defined to control the feature, defaulting to on. Author: Thomas Munro Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Robert Haas Tested-By: Rafia Sabih, Prabhat Sahu Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.com https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
2017-12-05Support Parallel Append plan nodes.Robert Haas
When we create an Append node, we can spread out the workers over the subplans instead of piling on to each subplan one at a time, which should typically be a bit more efficient, both because the startup cost of any plan executed entirely by one worker is paid only once and also because of reduced contention. We can also construct Append plans using a mix of partial and non-partial subplans, which may allow for parallelism in places that otherwise couldn't support it. Unfortunately, this patch doesn't handle the important case of parallelizing UNION ALL by running each branch in a separate worker; the executor infrastructure is added here, but more planner work is needed. Amit Khandekar, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, reviewed and tested by Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Langote, Rafia Sabih, Amit Kapila, and Rajkumar Raghuwanshi. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9dy0K_E8r727heqXoBmWZ83HwLFwdcaSSmBQ1+S+vRuUQ@mail.gmail.com
2017-11-16Pass InitPlan values to workers via Gather (Merge).Robert Haas
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
2017-11-08Change TRUE/FALSE to true/falsePeter Eisentraut
The lower case spellings are C and C++ standard and are used in most parts of the PostgreSQL sources. The upper case spellings are only used in some files/modules. So standardize on the standard spellings. The APIs for ICU, Perl, and Windows define their own TRUE and FALSE, so those are left as is when using those APIs. In code comments, we use the lower-case spelling for the C concepts and keep the upper-case spelling for the SQL concepts. Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
2017-11-01Allow bitmap scans to operate as index-only scans when possible.Tom Lane
If we don't have to return any columns from heap tuples, and there's no need to recheck qual conditions, and the heap page is all-visible, then we can skip fetching the heap page altogether. Skip prefetching pages too, when possible, on the assumption that the recheck flag will remain the same from one page to the next. While that assumption is hardly bulletproof, it seems like a good bet most of the time, and better than prefetching pages we don't need. This commit installs the executor infrastructure, but doesn't change any planner cost estimates, thus possibly causing bitmap scans to not be chosen in cases where this change renders them the best choice. I (tgl) am not entirely convinced that we need to account for this behavior in the planner, because I think typically the bitmap scan would get chosen anyway if it's the best bet. In any case the submitted patch took way too many shortcuts, resulting in too many clearly-bad choices, to be committable. Alexander Kuzmenkov, reviewed by Alexey Chernyshov, and whacked around rather heavily by me. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/239a8955-c0fc-f506-026d-c837e86c827b@postgrespro.ru
2017-10-13Fix possible crash with Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan.Robert Haas
If a Parallel Bitmap Heap scan's chain of leftmost descendents includes a BitmapOr whose first child is a BitmapAnd, the prior coding would mistakenly create a non-shared TIDBitmap and then try to perform shared iteration. Report by Tomas Vondra. Patch by Dilip Kumar. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/50e89684-8ad9-dead-8767-c9545bafd3b6@2ndquadrant.com
2017-10-06Basic partition-wise join functionality.Robert Haas
Instead of joining two partitioned tables in their entirety we can, if it is an equi-join on the partition keys, join the matching partitions individually. This involves teaching the planner about "other join" rels, which are related to regular join rels in the same way that other member rels are related to baserels. This can use significantly more CPU time and memory than regular join planning, because there may now be a set of "other" rels not only for every base relation but also for every join relation. In most practical cases, this probably shouldn't be a problem, because (1) it's probably unusual to join many tables each with many partitions using the partition keys for all joins and (2) if you do that scenario then you probably have a big enough machine to handle the increased memory cost of planning and (3) the resulting plan is highly likely to be better, so what you spend in planning you'll make up on the execution side. All the same, for now, turn this feature off by default. Currently, we can only perform joins between two tables whose partitioning schemes are absolutely identical. It would be nice to cope with other scenarios, such as extra partitions on one side or the other with no match on the other side, but that will have to wait for a future patch. Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed and tested by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Amit Langote, Rafia Sabih, Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, Antonin Houska, Amit Khandekar, and by me. A few final adjustments by me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=EaDTSA@mail.gmail.com Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRcitjfrULr5jfuKWRPsGUX0LQ0k8-yG0Qw2+1LBGNpMdw@mail.gmail.com