| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
In the case where inheritance_planner() finds that every table has
been excluded by constraints, it thought it could get away with
making a plan consisting of just a dummy Result node. While certainly
there's no updating or deleting to be done, this had two user-visible
problems: the plan did not report the correct set of output columns
when a RETURNING clause was present, and if there were any
statement-level triggers that should be fired, it didn't fire them.
Hence, rather than only generating the dummy Result, we need to
stick a valid ModifyTable node on top, which requires a tad more
effort here.
It's been broken this way for as long as inheritance_planner() has
known about deleting excluded subplans at all (cf commit 635d42e9c),
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane, per a report from Petr Fedorov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5da6f0f0-1364-1876-6978-907678f89a3e@phystech.edu
|
|
create_lateral_join_info() computes a bunch of information about lateral
references between base relations, and then attempts to propagate those
markings to appendrel children of the original base relations. But the
original coding neglected the possibility of indirect descendants
(grandchildren etc). During v11 development we noticed that this was
wrong for partitioned-table cases, but failed to realize that it was just
as wrong for any appendrel. While the case can't arise for appendrels
derived from traditional table inheritance (because we make a flat
appendrel for that), nested appendrels can arise from nested UNION ALL
subqueries. Failure to mark the lower-level relations as having lateral
references leads to confusion in add_paths_to_append_rel about whether
unparameterized paths can be built. It's not very clear whether that
leads to any user-visible misbehavior; the lack of field reports suggests
that it may cause nothing worse than minor cost misestimation. Still,
it's a bug, and it leads to failures of Asserts that I intend to add
later.
To fix, we need to propagate information from all appendrel parents,
not just those that are RELOPT_BASERELs. We can still do it in one
pass, if we rely on the append_rel_list to be ordered with ancestor
relationships before descendant ones; add assertions checking that.
While fixing this, we can make a small performance improvement by
traversing the append_rel_list just once instead of separately for
each appendrel parent relation.
Noted while investigating bug #15613, though this patch does not fix
that (which is why I'm not committing the related Asserts yet).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3951.1549403812@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Our support for multiple-set-clauses in UPDATE assumes that the Params
referencing a MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK SubPlan will appear before that SubPlan
in the targetlist of the plan node that calculates the updated row.
(Yeah, it's a hack...) In some PG branches it's possible that a Result
node gets inserted between the primary calculation of the update tlist
and the ModifyTable node. setrefs.c did the wrong thing in this case
and left the upper-level Params as Params, causing a crash at runtime.
What it should do is replace them with "outer" Vars referencing the child
plan node's output. That's a result of careless ordering of operations
in fix_upper_expr_mutator, so we can fix it just by reordering the code.
Fix fix_join_expr_mutator similarly for consistency, even though join
nodes could never appear in such a context. (In general, it seems
likely to be a bit cheaper to use Vars than Params in such situations
anyway, so this patch might offer a tiny performance improvement.)
The hazard extends back to 9.5 where the MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK stuff
was introduced, so back-patch that far. However, this may be a live
bug only in 9.6.x and 10.x, as the other branches don't seem to want
to calculate the final tlist below the Result node. (That plan shape
change between branches might be a mini-bug in itself, but I'm not
really interested in digging into the reasons for that right now.
Still, add a regression test memorializing what we expect there,
so we'll notice if it changes again.)
Per bug report from Eduards Bezverhijs.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b6cd572a-3e44-8785-75e9-c512a5a17a73@tieto.com
|
|
On further reflection, commit e5d83995e didn't go far enough: pretty much
everywhere in the planner that examines a clause's is_pushed_down flag
ought to be changed to use the more complicated behavior where we also
check the clause's required_relids. Otherwise we could make incorrect
decisions about whether, say, a clause is safe to use as a hash clause.
Some (many?) of these places are safe as-is, either because they are
never reached while considering a parameterized path, or because there
are additional checks that would reject a pushed-down clause anyway.
However, it seems smarter to just code them all the same way rather
than rely on easily-broken reasoning of that sort.
In support of that, invent a new macro RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN that should
be used in place of direct tests on the is_pushed_down flag.
Like the previous patch, back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f8128b11-c5bf-3539-48cd-234178b2314d@proxel.se
|
|
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
|
|
One of the things canonicalize_qual() does is to remove constant-NULL
subexpressions of top-level AND/OR clauses. It does that on the assumption
that what it's given is a top-level WHERE clause, so that NULL can be
treated like FALSE. Although this is documented down inside a subroutine
of canonicalize_qual(), it wasn't mentioned in the documentation of that
function itself, and some callers hadn't gotten that memo.
Notably, commit d007a9505 caused get_relation_constraints() to apply
canonicalize_qual() to CHECK constraints. That allowed constraint
exclusion to misoptimize situations in which a CHECK constraint had a
provably-NULL subclause, as seen in the regression test case added here,
in which a child table that should be scanned is not. (Although this
thinko is ancient, the test case doesn't fail before 9.2, for reasons
I've not bothered to track down in detail. There may be related cases
that do fail before that.)
More recently, commit f0e44751d added an independent bug by applying
canonicalize_qual() to index expressions, which is even sillier since
those might not even be boolean. If they are, though, I think this
could lead to making incorrect index entries for affected index
expressions in v10. I haven't attempted to prove that though.
To fix, add an "is_check" parameter to canonicalize_qual() to specify
whether it should assume WHERE or CHECK semantics, and make it perform
NULL-elimination accordingly. Adjust the callers to apply the right
semantics, or remove the call entirely in cases where it's not known
that the expression has one or the other semantics. I also removed
the call in some cases involving partition expressions, where it should
be a no-op because such expressions should be canonical already ...
and was a no-op, independently of whether it could in principle have
done something, because it was being handed the qual in implicit-AND
format which isn't what it expects. In HEAD, add an Assert to catch
that type of mistake in future.
This represents an API break for external callers of canonicalize_qual().
While that's intentional in HEAD to make such callers think about which
case applies to them, it seems like something we probably wouldn't be
thanked for in released branches. Hence, in released branches, the
extra parameter is added to a new function canonicalize_qual_ext(),
and canonicalize_qual() is a wrapper that retains its old behavior.
Patch by me with suggestions from Dean Rasheed. Back-patch to all
supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/24475.1520635069@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
rewriteTargetListUD's processing is dependent on the relkind of the query's
target table. That was fine at the time it was made to act that way, even
for queries on inheritance trees, because all tables in an inheritance tree
would necessarily be plain tables. However, the 9.5 feature addition
allowing some members of an inheritance tree to be foreign tables broke the
assumption that rewriteTargetListUD's output tlist could be applied to all
child tables with nothing more than column-number mapping. This led to
visible failures if foreign child tables had row-level triggers, and would
also break in cases where child tables belonged to FDWs that used methods
other than CTID for row identification.
To fix, delay running rewriteTargetListUD until after the planner has
expanded inheritance, so that it is applied separately to the (already
mapped) tlist for each child table. We can conveniently call it from
preprocess_targetlist. Refactor associated code slightly to avoid the
need to heap_open the target relation multiple times during
preprocess_targetlist. (The APIs remain a bit ugly, particularly around
the point of which steps scribble on parse->targetList and which don't.
But avoiding such scribbling would require a change in FDW callback APIs,
which is more pain than it's worth.)
Also fix ExecModifyTable to ensure that "tupleid" is reset to NULL when
we transition from rows providing a CTID to rows that don't. (That's
really an independent bug, but it manifests in much the same cases.)
Add a regression test checking one manifestation of this problem, which
was that row-level triggers on a foreign child table did not work right.
Back-patch to 9.5 where the problem was introduced.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Ildus Kurbangaliev and Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170514150525.0346ba72@postgrespro.ru
|
|
This lets it do the right thing for, eg, varchar columns.
Back-patch to 9.5 where this logic appeared.
David Rowley, per report from Kim Rose Carlsen
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/VI1PR05MB17091F9A9876528055D6A827C76D0@VI1PR05MB1709.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com
|
|
Previously the code would generate incorrect results, assertion
failures, or crashes if given unsortable (but hashable) columns in
grouping sets. Handle by throwing an error instead.
Report and patch by Pavan Deolasee (though I changed the error
wording slightly); regression test by me.
(This affects 9.5 only since the planner was refactored in 9.6.)
|
|
We were applying the use_physical_tlist optimization to all relation
scan plans, even those implemented by custom scan providers. However,
that's a bad idea for a couple of reasons. The custom provider might
be unable to provide columns that it hadn't expected to be asked for
(for example, the custom scan might depend on an index-only scan).
Even more to the point, there's no good reason to suppose that this
"optimization" is a win for a custom scan; whatever the custom provider
is doing is likely not based on simply returning physical heap tuples.
(As a counterexample, if the custom scan is an interface to a column store,
demanding all columns would be a huge loss.) If it is a win, the custom
provider could make that decision for itself and insert a suitable
pathtarget into the path, anyway.
Per discussion with Dmitry Ivanov. Back-patch to 9.5 where custom scan
support was introduced. The argument that the custom provider can adjust
the behavior by changing the pathtarget only applies to 9.6+, but on
balance it seems more likely that use_physical_tlist will hurt custom
scans than help them.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e29ddd30-8ef9-4da5-a50b-2bb7b8c7198d@postgrespro.ru
|
|
Backpatch to all supported versions, where applicable, to make backpatching
of future fixes go more smoothly.
Josh Soref
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACZqfqCf+5qRztLPgmmosr-B0Ye4srWzzw_mo4c_8_B_mtjmJQ@mail.gmail.com
|
|
ExecReScanAgg's check for whether it could re-use a previously calculated
hashtable neglected the possibility that the Agg node might reference
PARAM_EXEC Params that are not referenced by its input plan node. That's
okay if the Params are in upper tlist or qual expressions; but if one
appears in aggregate input expressions, then the hashtable contents need
to be recomputed when the Param's value changes.
To avoid unnecessary performance degradation in the case of a Param that
isn't within an aggregate input, add logic to the planner to determine
which Params are within aggregate inputs. This requires a new field in
struct Agg, but fortunately we never write plans to disk, so this isn't
an initdb-forcing change.
Per report from Jeevan Chalke. This has been broken since forever,
so back-patch to all supported branches.
Andrew Gierth, with minor adjustments by me
Report: <CAM2+6=VY8ykfLT5Q8vb9B6EbeBk-NGuLbT6seaQ+Fq4zXvrDcA@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
subquery_planner() failed to apply expression preprocessing to the
arbiterElems and arbiterWhere fields of an OnConflictExpr. No doubt the
theory was that this wasn't necessary because we don't actually try to
execute those expressions; but that's wrong, because it results in failure
to match to index expressions or index predicates that are changed at all
by preprocessing. Per bug #14132 from Reynold Smith.
Also add pullup_replace_vars processing for onConflictWhere. Perhaps
it's impossible to have a subquery reference there, but I'm not exactly
convinced; and even if true today it's a failure waiting to happen.
Also add some comments to other places where one or another field of
OnConflictExpr is intentionally ignored, with explanation as to why it's
okay to do so.
Also, catalog/dependency.c failed to record any dependency on the named
constraint in ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT, allowing such a constraint to
be dropped while rules exist that depend on it, and allowing pg_dump to
dump such a rule before the constraint it refers to. The normal execution
path managed to error out reasonably for a dangling constraint reference,
but ruleutils.c dumped core; so in addition to fixing the omission, add
a protective check in ruleutils.c, since we can't retroactively add a
dependency in existing databases.
Back-patch to 9.5 where this code was introduced.
Report: <20160510190350.2608.48667@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
|
|
Given a left join containing a full join in its righthand side, with
the left join's joinclause referencing only one side of the full join
(in a non-strict fashion, so that the full join doesn't get simplified),
the planner could fail with "failed to build any N-way joins" or related
errors. This happened because the full join was seen as overlapping the
left join's RHS, and then recent changes within join_is_legal() caused
that function to conclude that the full join couldn't validly be formed.
Rather than try to rejigger join_is_legal() yet more to allow this,
I think it's better to fix initsplan.c so that the required join order
is explicit in the SpecialJoinInfo data structure. The previous coding
there essentially ignored full joins, relying on the fact that we don't
flatten them in the joinlist data structure to preserve their ordering.
That's sufficient to prevent a wrong plan from being formed, but as this
example shows, it's not sufficient to ensure that the right plan will
be formed. We need to work a bit harder to ensure that the right plan
looks sane according to the SpecialJoinInfos.
Per bug #14105 from Vojtech Rylko. This was apparently induced by
commit 8703059c6 (though now that I've seen it, I wonder whether there
are related cases that could have failed before that); so back-patch
to all active branches. Unfortunately, that patch also went into 9.0,
so this bug is a regression that won't be fixed in that branch.
|
|
In 61444bfb we started to allow HAVING clauses to be fully pushed down
into WHERE, even when grouping sets are in use. That turns out not to
work correctly, because grouping sets can "produce" NULLs, meaning that
filtering in WHERE and HAVING can have different results, even when no
aggregates or volatile functions are involved.
Instead only allow pushdown of empty grouping sets.
It'd be nice to do better, but the exact mechanics of deciding which
cases are safe are still being debated. It's important to give correct
results till we find a good solution, and such a solution might not be
appropriate for backpatching anyway.
Bug: #13863
Reported-By: 'wrb'
Diagnosed-By: Dean Rasheed
Author: Andrew Gierth
Reviewed-By: Dean Rasheed and Andres Freund
Discussion: 20160113183558.12989.56904@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Backpatch: 9.5, where grouping sets were introduced
|
|
We carry around information about if a given query has row security or
not to allow the plancache to use that information to invalidate a
planned query in the event that the environment changes.
Previously, the flag of one of the subqueries was simply being copied
into place to indicate if the query overall included RLS components.
That's wrong as we need the global OR of all subqueries. Fix by
changing the code to match how fireRIRules works, which is results
in OR'ing all of the flags.
Noted by Tom.
Back-patch to 9.5 where RLS was introduced.
|
|
I originally modeled this data structure on SpecialJoinInfo, but after
commit acfcd45cacb6df23 that looks like a pretty poor decision.
All we really need is relid sets identifying laterally-referenced rels;
and most of the time, what we want to know about includes indirect lateral
references, a case the LateralJoinInfo data was unsuited to compute with
any efficiency. The previous commit redefined RelOptInfo.lateral_relids
as the transitive closure of lateral references, so that it easily supports
checking indirect references. For the places where we really do want just
direct references, add a new RelOptInfo field direct_lateral_relids, which
is easily set up as a copy of lateral_relids before we perform the
transitive closure calculation. Then we can just drop lateral_info_list
and LateralJoinInfo and the supporting code. This makes the planner's
handling of lateral references noticeably more efficient, and shorter too.
Such a change can't be back-patched into stable branches for fear of
breaking extensions that might be looking at the planner's data structures;
but it seems not too late to push it into 9.5, so I've done so.
|
|
More fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich exposed that the planner did not
cope well with chains of lateral references. If relation X references Y
laterally, and Y references Z laterally, then we will have to scan X on the
inside of a nestloop with Z, so for all intents and purposes X is laterally
dependent on Z too. The planner did not understand this and would generate
intermediate joins that could not be used. While that was usually harmless
except for wasting some planning cycles, under the right circumstances it
would lead to "failed to build any N-way joins" or "could not devise a
query plan" planner failures.
To fix that, convert the existing per-relation lateral_relids and
lateral_referencers relid sets into their transitive closures; that is,
they now show all relations on which a rel is directly or indirectly
laterally dependent. This not only fixes the chained-reference problem
but allows some of the relevant tests to be made substantially simpler
and faster, since they can be reduced to simple bitmap manipulations
instead of searches of the LateralJoinInfo list.
Also, when a PlaceHolderVar that is due to be evaluated at a join contains
lateral references, we should treat those references as indirect lateral
dependencies of each of the join's base relations. This prevents us from
trying to join any individual base relations to the lateral reference
source before the join is formed, which again cannot work.
Andreas' testing also exposed another oversight in the "dangerous
PlaceHolderVar" test added in commit 85e5e222b1dd02f1. Simply rejecting
unsafe join paths in joinpath.c is insufficient, because in some cases
we will end up rejecting *all* possible paths for a particular join, again
leading to "could not devise a query plan" failures. The restriction has
to be known also to join_is_legal and its cohort functions, so that they
will not select a join for which that will happen. I chose to move the
supporting logic into joinrels.c where the latter functions are.
Back-patch to 9.3 where LATERAL support was introduced.
|
|
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 provided basic
infrastructure for allowing a foreign data wrapper or custom scan
provider to replace a join of one or more tables with a scan.
However, this infrastructure failed to take into account the need
for possible EvalPlanQual rechecks, and ExecScanFetch would fail
an assertion (or just overwrite memory) if such a check was attempted
for a plan containing a pushed-down join. To fix, adjust the EPQ
machinery to skip some processing steps when scanrelid == 0, making
those the responsibility of scan's recheck method, which also has
the responsibility in this case of correctly populating the relevant
slot.
To allow foreign scans to gain control in the right place to make
use of this new facility, add a new, optional RecheckForeignScan
method. Also, allow a foreign scan to have a child plan, which can
be used to correctly populate the slot (or perhaps for something
else, but this is the only use currently envisioned).
KaiGai Kohei, reviewed by Robert Haas, Etsuro Fujita, and Kyotaro
Horiguchi.
|
|
KaiGai Kohei
|
|
This fixes a long-standing bug which was discovered while investigating
the interaction between the new join pushdown code and the EvalPlanQual
machinery: if a ForeignScan appears on the inner side of a paramaterized
nestloop, an EPQ recheck would re-return the original tuple even if
it no longer satisfied the pushed-down quals due to changed parameter
values.
This fix adds a new member to ForeignScan and ForeignScanState and a
new argument to make_foreignscan, and requires changes to FDWs which
push down quals to populate that new argument with a list of quals they
have chosen to push down. Therefore, I'm only back-patching to 9.5,
even though the bug is not new in 9.5.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by me and by Kyotaro Horiguchi.
|
|
Four related issues:
1) attnos/varnos/resnos for EXCLUDED were out of sync when a column
after one dropped in the underlying relation was referenced.
2) References to whole-row variables (i.e. EXCLUDED.*) lead to errors.
3) It was possible to reference system columns in the EXCLUDED pseudo
relations, even though they would not have valid contents.
4) References to EXCLUDED were rewritten by the RLS machinery, as
EXCLUDED was treated as if it were the underlying relation.
To fix the first two issues, generate the excluded targetlist with
dropped columns in mind and add an entry for whole row
variables. Instead of unconditionally adding a wholerow entry we could
pull up the expression if needed, but doing it unconditionally seems
simpler. The wholerow entry is only really needed for ruleutils/EXPLAIN
support anyway.
The remaining two issues are addressed by changing the EXCLUDED RTE to
have relkind = composite. That fits with EXCLUDED not actually being a
real relation, and allows to treat it differently in the relevant
places. scanRTEForColumn now skips looking up system columns when the
RTE has a composite relkind; fireRIRrules() already had a corresponding
check, thereby preventing RLS expansion on EXCLUDED.
Also add tests for these issues, and improve a few comments around
excluded handling in setrefs.c.
Reported-By: Peter Geoghegan, Geoff Winkless
Author: Andres Freund, Amit Langote, Peter Geoghegan
Discussion: CAEzk6fdzJ3xYQZGbcuYM2rBd2BuDkUksmK=mY9UYYDugg_GgZg@mail.gmail.com,
CAM3SWZS+CauzbiCEcg-GdE6K6ycHE_Bz6Ksszy8AoixcMHOmsA@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 9.5, where ON CONFLICT was introduced
|
|
The "typo" alleged in commit 1e460d4bd was actually a comment that was
correct when written, but I missed updating it in commit b5282aa89.
Use a slightly less specific (and hopefully more future-proof) description
of what is collected. Back-patch to 9.2 where that commit appeared, and
revert the comment to its then-entirely-correct state before that.
|
|
We're adding OIDs, not TIDs, to invalItems.
Pointed out by Etsuro Fujita.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
|
|
A new test case from Andreas Seltenreich showed that we were still a bit
confused about removing PlaceHolderVars during join removal. Specifically,
remove_rel_from_query would remove a PHV that was used only underneath
the removable join, even if the place where it's used was the join partner
relation and not the join clause being deleted. This would lead to a
"too late to create a new PlaceHolderInfo" error later on. We can defend
against that by checking ph_eval_at to see if the PHV could possibly be
getting used at some partner rel.
Also improve some nearby LATERAL-related logic. I decided that the check
on ph_lateral needed to take precedence over the check on ph_needed, in
case there's a lateral reference underneath the join being considered.
(That may be impossible, but I'm not convinced of it, and it's easy enough
to defend against the case.) Also, I realized that remove_rel_from_query's
logic for updating LateralJoinInfos is dead code, because we don't build
those at all until after join removal.
Back-patch to 9.3. Previous versions didn't have the LATERAL issues, of
course, and they also didn't attempt to remove PlaceHolderInfos during join
removal. (I'm starting to wonder if changing that was really such a great
idea.)
|
|
Commit 9e7e29c75ad441450f9b8287bd51c13521641e3b introduced an Assert that
join removal didn't reduce the eval_at set of any PlaceHolderVar to empty.
At first glance it looks like join_is_removable ensures that's true --- but
actually, the loop in join_is_removable skips PlaceHolderVars that are not
referenced above the join due to be removed. So, if we don't want any
empty eval_at sets, the right thing to do is to delete any now-unreferenced
PlaceHolderVars from the data structure entirely.
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich. Back-patch to 9.3 where the
aforesaid Assert was added.
|
|
Further testing revealed that commit f69b4b9495269cc4 was still a few
bricks shy of a load: minor tweaking of the previous test cases resulted
in the same wrong-outer-join-order problem coming back. After study
I concluded that my previous changes in make_outerjoininfo() were just
accidentally masking the problem, and should be reverted in favor of
forcing syntactic join order whenever an upper outer join's predicate
doesn't mention a lower outer join's LHS. This still allows the
chained-outer-joins style that is the normally optimizable case.
I also tightened things up some more in join_is_legal(). It seems to me
on review that what's really happening in the exception case where we
ignore a mismatched special join is that we're allowing the proposed join
to associate into the RHS of the outer join we're comparing it to. As
such, we should *always* insist that the proposed join be a left join,
which eliminates a bunch of rather dubious argumentation. The case where
we weren't enforcing that was the one that was already known buggy anyway
(it had a violatable Assert before the aforesaid commit) so it hardly
deserves a lot of deference.
Back-patch to all active branches, like the previous patch. The added
regression test case failed in all branches back to 9.1, and I think it's
only an unrelated change in costing calculations that kept 9.0 from
choosing a broken plan.
|
|
An outer join clause that didn't actually reference the RHS (perhaps only
after constant-folding) could confuse the join order enforcement logic,
leading to wrong query results. Also, nested occurrences of such things
could trigger an Assertion that on reflection seems incorrect.
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich. The practical use of such cases
seems thin enough that it's not too surprising we've not heard field
reports about it.
This has been broken for a long time, so back-patch to all active branches.
|
|
Although I think on all modern machines floating division by zero
results in Infinity not SIGFPE, we still don't want infinities
running around in the planner's costing estimates; too much risk
of that leading to insane behavior.
grouping_planner() failed to consider the possibility that final_rel
might be known dummy and hence have zero rowcount. (I wonder if it
would be better to set a rows estimate of 1 for dummy relations?
But at least in the back branches, changing this convention seems
like a bad idea, so I'll leave that for another day.)
Make certain that get_variable_numdistinct() produces a nonzero result.
The case that can be shown to be broken is with stadistinct < 0.0 and
small ntuples; we did not prevent the result from rounding to zero.
For good luck I applied clamp_row_est() to all the nonconstant return
values.
In ExecChooseHashTableSize(), Assert that we compute positive nbuckets
and nbatch. I know of no reason to think this isn't the case, but it
seems like a good safety check.
Per reports from Piotr Stefaniak. Back-patch to all active branches.
|
|
Previously we disallowed pushing down quals to WHERE in the presence of
grouping sets. That's overly restrictive.
We now instead copy quals to WHERE if applicable, leaving the
one in HAVING in place. That's because, at that stage of the planning
process, it's nontrivial to determine if it's safe to remove the one in
HAVING.
Author: Andrew Gierth
Discussion: 874mkt3l59.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Backpatch: 9.5, where grouping sets were introduced. This isn't exactly
a bugfix, but it seems better to keep the branches in sync at this point.
|
|
The previous coding frequently failed to fail because for one it's
unusual to have rollup clauses with one column, and for another
sometimes the wrong mapping didn't cause obvious problems.
Author: Jeevan Chalke
Reviewed-By: Andrew Gierth
Discussion: CAM2+6=W=9=hQOipH0HAPbkun3Z3TFWij_EiHue0_6UX=oR=1kw@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 9.5, where grouping sets were introduced
|
|
The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method
API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without
specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can
implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable
thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will
pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural
language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level
support object needed is a single handler function identified by having
a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog
altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature.
Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments
(the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at
ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright
unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples.
Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable
within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more
honestly with methods that can't support that requirement.
Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix
assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as
failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering).
Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too.
Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API
in production.
|
|
The TABLESAMPLE and row security patches each overlooked this function,
though their errors of omission were opposite: RLS failed to zero out the
securityQuals field, leading to wasteful copying of useless expression
trees in finished plans, while TABLESAMPLE neglected to add a comment
saying that it intentionally *isn't* deleting the tablesample subtree.
There probably should be a similar comment about ctename, too.
Back-patch as appropriate.
|
|
David Rowley
|
|
Backpatch to 9.5 where ON CONFLICT was introduced.
Author: Peter Geoghegan
|
|
Etsuro Fujita
|
|
Allow CustomPath to have a list of paths, CustomPlan a list of plans,
and CustomPlanState a list of planstates known to the core system, so
that custom path/plan providers can more reasonably use this
infrastructure for nodes with multiple children.
KaiGai Kohei, per a design suggestion from Tom Lane, with some
further kibitzing by me.
|
|
Commit c03ad5602f529787968fa3201b35c119bbc6d782 introduced a planner
performance regression for UPDATE/DELETE on large inheritance sets.
It required copying the append_rel_list (which is of size proportional to
the number of inherited tables) once for each inherited table, thus
resulting in O(N^2) time and memory consumption. While it's difficult to
avoid that in general, the extra work only has to be done for
append_rel_list entries that actually reference subquery RTEs, which
inheritance-set entries will not. So we can buy back essentially all of
the loss in cases without subqueries in FROM; and even for those, the added
work is mainly proportional to the number of UNION ALL subqueries.
Back-patch to 9.2, like the previous commit.
Tom Lane and Dean Rasheed, per a complaint from Thomas Munro.
|
|
Fix some places where pgindent did silly stuff, often because project
style wasn't followed to begin with. (I've not touched the atomics
headers, though.)
|
|
|
|
Previously, INSERT with ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE specified used a new
command tag -- UPSERT. It was introduced out of concern that INSERT as
a command tag would be a misrepresentation for ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE, as
some affected rows may actually have been updated.
Alvaro Herrera noticed that the implementation of that new command tag
was incomplete; in subsequent discussion we concluded that having it
doesn't provide benefits that are in line with the compatibility breaks
it requires.
Catversion bump due to the removal of PlannedStmt->isUpsert.
Author: Peter Geoghegan
Discussion: 20150520215816.GI5885@postgresql.org
|
|
Paul Ramsey reported that commit 35fcb1b3d038a501f3f4c87c05630095abaaadab
induced a core dump on commuted ORDER BY expressions, because it was
assuming that the indexorderby expression could be found verbatim in the
relevant equivalence class, but it wasn't there. We really don't need
anything that complicated anyway; for the data types likely to be used for
index ORDER BY operators in the foreseeable future, the exprType() of the
ORDER BY expression will serve fine. (The case where we'd have to work
harder is where the ORDER BY expression's result is only binary-compatible
with the declared input type of the ordering operator; long before worrying
about that, one would need to get rid of GiST's hard-wired assumption that
said datatype is float8.)
Aside from fixing that crash and adding a regression test for the case,
I did some desultory code review:
nodeIndexscan.c was likewise overthinking how hard it ought to work to
identify the datatype of the ORDER BY expressions.
Add comments explaining how come nodeIndexscan.c can get away with
simplifying assumptions about NULLS LAST ordering and no backward scan.
Revert no-longer-needed changes of find_ec_member_for_tle(); while the
new definition was no worse than the old, it wasn't better either, and
it might cause back-patching pain.
Revert entirely bogus additions to genam.h.
|
|
This oversight results in a crash at executor startup if the plan has
been copied. outfuncs.c was missed as well.
While we could probably have taught both those files to cope with the
originally chosen representation of an Oid array, it would have been
painful, not least because there'd be no easy way to verify the array
length. An Oid List is far easier to work with. And AFAICS, there is
no particular notational benefit to using an array rather than a list
in the existing parts of the patch either. So just change it to a list.
Error in commit 35fcb1b3d038a501f3f4c87c05630095abaaadab, which is new,
so no need for back-patch.
|
|
This SQL standard functionality allows to aggregate data by different
GROUP BY clauses at once. Each grouping set returns rows with columns
grouped by in other sets set to NULL.
This could previously be achieved by doing each grouping as a separate
query, conjoined by UNION ALLs. Besides being considerably more concise,
grouping sets will in many cases be faster, requiring only one scan over
the underlying data.
The current implementation of grouping sets only supports using sorting
for input. Individual sets that share a sort order are computed in one
pass. If there are sets that don't share a sort order, additional sort &
aggregation steps are performed. These additional passes are sourced by
the previous sort step; thus avoiding repeated scans of the source data.
The code is structured in a way that adding support for purely using
hash aggregation or a mix of hashing and sorting is possible. Sorting
was chosen to be supported first, as it is the most generic method of
implementation.
Instead of, as in an earlier versions of the patch, representing the
chain of sort and aggregation steps as full blown planner and executor
nodes, all but the first sort are performed inside the aggregation node
itself. This avoids the need to do some unusual gymnastics to handle
having to return aggregated and non-aggregated tuples from underlying
nodes, as well as having to shut down underlying nodes early to limit
memory usage. The optimizer still builds Sort/Agg node to describe each
phase, but they're not part of the plan tree, but instead additional
data for the aggregation node. They're a convenient and preexisting way
to describe aggregation and sorting. The first (and possibly only) sort
step is still performed as a separate execution step. That retains
similarity with existing group by plans, makes rescans fairly simple,
avoids very deep plans (leading to slow explains) and easily allows to
avoid the sorting step if the underlying data is sorted by other means.
A somewhat ugly side of this patch is having to deal with a grammar
ambiguity between the new CUBE keyword and the cube extension/functions
named cube (and rollup). To avoid breaking existing deployments of the
cube extension it has not been renamed, neither has cube been made a
reserved keyword. Instead precedence hacking is used to make GROUP BY
cube(..) refer to the CUBE grouping sets feature, and not the function
cube(). To actually group by a function cube(), unlikely as that might
be, the function name has to be quoted.
Needs a catversion bump because stored rules may change.
Author: Andrew Gierth and Atri Sharma, with contributions from Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Noah Misch, Tom Lane, Svenne Krap, Tomas
Vondra, Erik Rijkers, Marti Raudsepp, Pavel Stehule
Discussion: CAOeZVidmVRe2jU6aMk_5qkxnB7dfmPROzM7Ur8JPW5j8Y5X-Lw@mail.gmail.com
|
|
For upcoming BRIN opclasses, it's convenient to have strategy numbers
defined in a single place. Since there's nothing appropriate, create
it. The StrategyNumber typedef now lives there, as well as existing
strategy numbers for B-trees (from skey.h) and R-tree-and-friends (from
gist.h). skey.h is forced to include stratnum.h because of the
StrategyNumber typedef, but gist.h is not; extensions that currently
rely on gist.h for rtree strategy numbers might need to add a new
A few .c files can stop including skey.h and/or gist.h, which is a nice
side benefit.
Per discussion:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150514232132.GZ2523@alvh.no-ip.org
Authored by Emre Hasegeli and Álvaro.
(It's not clear to me why bootscanner.l has any #include lines at all.)
|
|
Add a TABLESAMPLE clause to SELECT statements that allows
user to specify random BERNOULLI sampling or block level
SYSTEM sampling. Implementation allows for extensible
sampling functions to be written, using a standard API.
Basic version follows SQLStandard exactly. Usable
concrete use cases for the sampling API follow in later
commits.
Petr Jelinek
Reviewed by Michael Paquier and Simon Riggs
|
|
The distance function can now set *recheck = false, like index quals. The
executor will then re-check the ORDER BY expressions, and use a queue to
reorder the results on the fly.
This makes it possible to do kNN-searches on polygons and circles, which
don't store the exact value in the index, but just a bounding box.
Alexander Korotkov and me
|
|
Specifically the tlist and rti of the pseudo "excluded" relation weren't
properly treated by expression_tree_walker, which lead to errors when
excluded was referenced inside a rule because the varnos where not
properly adjusted. Similar omissions in OffsetVarNodes and
expression_tree_mutator had less impact, but should obviously be fixed
nonetheless.
A couple tests of for ON CONFLICT UPDATE into INSERT rule bearing
relations have been added.
In passing I updated a couple comments.
|
