| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Mop up assorted set-but-not-used warnings in the back branches.
This includes back-patching relevant fixes from commit 152c9f7b8
the rest of the way, but there are also several cases that did not
appear in HEAD. Some of those we'd fixed in a retail way but not
back-patched, and others I think just got rewritten out of existence
during nearby refactoring.
While here, also back-patch b1980f6d0 (PL/Tcl: Fix compiler warnings
with Tcl 8.6) into 9.2, so that that branch compiles warning-free
with modern Tcl.
Per project policy, this is a candidate for back-patching into
out-of-support branches: it suppresses annoying compiler warnings
but changes no behavior. Hence, back-patch all the way to 9.2.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/514615.1663615243@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
In the normal configuration where GEQO_DEBUG isn't defined,
recent clang versions have started to complain that geqo_main.c
accumulates the edge_failures count but never does anything
with it. As a minimal back-patchable fix, insert a void cast
to silence this warning. (I'd speculated about ripping out the
GEQO_DEBUG logic altogether, but I don't think we'd wish to
back-patch that.)
Per recently-established project policy, this is a candidate
for back-patching into out-of-support branches: it suppresses
an annoying compiler warning but changes no behavior. Hence,
back-patch all the way to 9.2.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+hUKGLTSZQwES8VNPmWO9AO0wSeLt36OCPDAZTccT1h7Q7kTQ@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Per buildfarm and local experimentation, bleeding-edge gcc isn't
convinced that the MemSet in reorder_function_arguments() is safe.
Shut it up by adding an explicit check that pronargs isn't negative,
and by changing MemSet to memset. (It appears that either change is
enough to quiet the warning at -O2, but let's do both to be sure.)
This back-patches commit 1046dbedd into out-of-support branches,
pursuant to newly-established project policy. The point is to
suppress scary-looking warnings so that people building these
branches needn't expend brain cells verifying that it's safe
to ignore the warnings.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d0316012-ece7-7b7e-2d36-9c38cb77cb3b@enterprisedb.com
|
|
canonicalize_ec_expression() is supposed to agree with coerce_type() as to
whether a RelabelType should be inserted to make a subexpression be valid
input for the operators of a given opclass. However, it did the wrong
thing with named-composite-type inputs to record_eq(): it put in a
RelabelType to RECORDOID, which the parser doesn't. In some cases this was
harmless because all code paths involving a particular equivalence class
did the same thing, but in other cases this would result in failing to
recognize a composite-type expression as being a member of an equivalence
class that it actually is a member of. The most obvious bad effect was to
fail to recognize that an index on a composite column could provide the
sort order needed for a mergejoin on that column, as reported by Teodor
Sigaev. I think there might be other, subtler, cases that result in
misoptimization. It also seems possible that an unwanted RelabelType
would sometimes get into an emitted plan --- but because record_eq and
friends don't examine the declared type of their input expressions, that
would not create any visible problems.
To fix, just treat RECORDOID as if it were a polymorphic type, which in
some sense it is. We might want to consider formalizing that a bit more
someday, but for the moment this seems to be the only place where an
IsPolymorphicType() test ought to include RECORDOID as well.
This has been broken for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/a6b22369-e3bf-4d49-f59d-0c41d3551e81@sigaev.ru
|
|
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
|
|
If we're inside a lateral subquery, there may be no unparameterized paths
for a particular child relation of an appendrel, in which case we *must*
be able to create similarly-parameterized paths for each other child
relation, else the planner will fail with "could not devise a query plan
for the given query". This means that there are situations where we'd
better be able to reparameterize at least one path for each child.
This calls into question the assumption in reparameterize_path() that
it can just punt if it feels like it. However, the only case that is
known broken right now is where the child is itself an appendrel so that
all its paths are AppendPaths. (I think possibly I disregarded that in
the original coding on the theory that nested appendrels would get folded
together --- but that only happens *after* reparameterize_path(), so it's
not excused from handling a child AppendPath.) Given that this code's been
like this since 9.3 when LATERAL was introduced, it seems likely we'd have
heard of other cases by now if there were a larger problem.
Per report from Elvis Pranskevichus. Back-patch to 9.3.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5981018.zdth1YWmNy@hammer.magicstack.net
|
|
If a query against an inheritance tree runs concurrently with an ALTER
TABLE that's disinheriting one of the tree members, it's possible to get
a "could not find inherited attribute" error because after obtaining lock
on the removed member, make_inh_translation_list sees that its columns
have attinhcount=0 and decides they aren't the columns it's looking for.
An ideal fix, perhaps, would avoid including such a just-removed member
table in the query at all; but there seems no way to accomplish that
without adding expensive catalog rechecks or creating a likelihood of
deadlocks. Instead, let's just drop the check on attinhcount. In this
way, a query that's included a just-disinherited child will still
succeed, which is not a completely unreasonable behavior.
This problem has existed for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches. Also add an isolation test verifying related behaviors.
Patch by me; the new isolation test is based on Kyotaro Horiguchi's work.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170626.174612.23936762.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
|
|
From: Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com>
|
|
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>
|
|
ExecEvalCase() tried to save a cycle or two by passing
&econtext->caseValue_isNull as the isNull argument to its sub-evaluation of
the CASE value expression. If that subexpression itself contained a CASE,
then *isNull was an alias for econtext->caseValue_isNull within the
recursive call of ExecEvalCase(), leading to confusion about whether the
inner call's caseValue was null or not. In the worst case this could lead
to a core dump due to dereferencing a null pointer. Fix by not assigning
to the global variable until control comes back from the subexpression.
Also, avoid using the passed-in isNull pointer transiently for evaluation
of WHEN expressions. (Either one of these changes would have been
sufficient to fix the known misbehavior, but it's clear now that each of
these choices was in itself dangerous coding practice and best avoided.
There do not seem to be any similar hazards elsewhere in execQual.c.)
Also, it was possible for inlining of a SQL function that implements the
equality operator used for a CASE comparison to result in one CASE
expression's CaseTestExpr node being inserted inside another CASE
expression. This would certainly result in wrong answers since the
improperly nested CaseTestExpr would be caused to return the inner CASE's
comparison value not the outer's. If the CASE values were of different
data types, a crash might result; moreover such situations could be abused
to allow disclosure of portions of server memory. To fix, teach
inline_function to check for "bare" CaseTestExpr nodes in the arguments of
a function to be inlined, and avoid inlining if there are any.
Heikki Linnakangas, Michael Paquier, Tom Lane
Report: https://github.com/greenplum-db/gpdb/pull/327
Report: <4DDCEEB8.50602@enterprisedb.com>
Security: CVE-2016-5423
|
|
Commits 4452000f3 et al established semantics for NullTest.argisrow that
are a bit different from its initial conception: rather than being merely
a cache of whether we've determined the input to have composite type,
the flag now has the further meaning that we should apply field-by-field
testing as per the standard's definition of IS [NOT] NULL. If argisrow
is false and yet the input has composite type, the construct instead has
the semantics of IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM NULL. Update the comments in
primnodes.h to clarify this, and fix ruleutils.c and deparse.c to print
such cases correctly. In the case of ruleutils.c, this merely results in
cosmetic changes in EXPLAIN output, since the case can't currently arise
in stored rules. However, it represents a live bug for deparse.c, which
would formerly have sent a remote query that had semantics different
from the local behavior. (From the user's standpoint, this means that
testing a remote nested-composite column for null-ness could have had
unexpected recursive behavior much like that fixed in 4452000f3.)
In a related but somewhat independent fix, make plancat.c set argisrow
to false in all NullTest expressions constructed to represent "attnotnull"
constructs. Since attnotnull is actually enforced as a simple null-value
check, this is a more accurate representation of the semantics; we were
previously overpromising what it meant for composite columns, which might
possibly lead to incorrect planner optimizations. (It seems that what the
SQL spec expects a NOT NULL constraint to mean is an IS NOT NULL test, so
arguably we are violating the spec and should fix attnotnull to do the
other thing. If we ever do, this part should get reverted.)
Back-patch, same as the previous commit.
Discussion: <10682.1469566308@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
|
The SQL standard appears to specify that IS [NOT] NULL's tests of field
nullness are non-recursive, ie, we shouldn't consider that a composite
field with value ROW(NULL,NULL) is null for this purpose.
ExecEvalNullTest got this right, but eval_const_expressions did not,
leading to weird inconsistencies depending on whether the expression
was such that the planner could apply constant folding.
Also, adjust the docs to mention that IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM NULL can be
used as a substitute test if a simple null check is wanted for a rowtype
argument. That motivated reordering things so that IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM
is described before IS [NOT] NULL. In HEAD, I went a bit further and added
a table showing all the comparison-related predicates.
Per bug #14235. Back-patch to all supported branches, since it's certainly
undesirable that constant-folding should change the semantics.
Report and patch by Andrew Gierth; assorted wordsmithing and revised
regression test cases by me.
Report: <20160708024746.1410.57282@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
|
|
Given a three-or-more-way equivalence class, such as X.Y = Y.Y = Z.Z,
it was possible for the planner to omit one of the quals needed to
enforce that all members of the equivalence class are actually equal.
This only happened in the case of a parameterized join node for two
of the relations, that is a plan tree like
Nested Loop
-> Scan X
-> Nested Loop
-> Scan Y
-> Scan Z
Filter: Z.Z = X.X
The eclass machinery normally expects to apply X.X = Y.Y when those
two relations are joined, but in this shape of plan tree they aren't
joined until the top node --- and, if the lower nested loop is marked
as parameterized by X, the top node will assume that the relevant eclass
condition(s) got pushed down into the lower node. On the other hand,
the scan of Z assumes that it's only responsible for constraining Z.Z
to match any one of the other eclass members. So one or another of
the required quals sometimes fell between the cracks, depending on
whether consideration of the eclass in get_joinrel_parampathinfo()
for the lower nested loop chanced to generate X.X = Y.Y or X.X = Z.Z
as the appropriate constraint there. If it generated the latter,
it'd erroneously suppose that the Z scan would take care of matters.
To fix, force X.X = Y.Y to be generated and applied at that join node
when this case occurs.
This is *extremely* hard to hit in practice, because various planner
behaviors conspire to mask the problem; starting with the fact that the
planner doesn't really like to generate a parameterized plan of the
above shape. (It might have been impossible to hit it before we
tweaked things to allow this plan shape for star-schema cases.) Many
thanks to Alexander Kirkouski for submitting a reproducible test case.
The bug can be demonstrated in all branches back to 9.2 where parameterized
paths were introduced, so back-patch that far.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
While convincing myself that commit 7e19db0c09719d79 would solve both of
the problems recently reported by Andreas Seltenreich, I realized that
add_paths_to_joinrel's handling of LATERAL restrictions could be made
noticeably simpler and faster if we were to retain the minimum possible
parameterization for each joinrel (that is, the set of relids supplying
unsatisfied lateral references in it). We already retain that for
baserels, in RelOptInfo.lateral_relids, so we can use that field for
joinrels too.
This is a back-port of commit edca44b1525b3d591263d032dc4fe500ea771e0e.
I originally intended not to back-patch that, but additional hacking
in this area turns out to be needed, making it necessary not optional
to compute lateral_relids for joinrels. In preparation for those fixes,
sync the relevant code with HEAD as much as practical. (I did not risk
rearranging fields of RelOptInfo in released branches, however.)
|
|
It was possible for the planner to decide to join a LATERAL subquery to
the outer side of an outer join before the outer join itself is completed.
Normally that's fine because of the associativity rules, but it doesn't
work if the subquery contains a lateral reference to the inner side of the
outer join. In such a situation the outer join *must* be done first.
join_is_legal() missed this consideration and would allow the join to be
attempted, but the actual path-building code correctly decided that no
valid join path could be made, sometimes leading to planner errors such as
"failed to build any N-way joins".
Per report from Andreas Seltenreich. Back-patch to 9.3 where LATERAL
support was added.
|
|
Etsuro Fujita spotted a thinko in the README commentary.
|
|
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.
|
|
Oskari Saarenmaa. Backpatch to stable branches where applicable.
|
|
One of the changes I made in commit 8703059c6b55c427 turns out not to have
been such a good idea: we still need the exception in join_is_legal() that
allows a join if both inputs already overlap the RHS of the special join
we're checking. Otherwise we can miss valid plans, and might indeed fail
to find a plan at all, as in recent report from Andreas Seltenreich.
That code was added way back in commit c17117649b9ae23d, but I failed to
include a regression test case then; my bad. Put it back with a better
explanation, and a test this time. The logic does end up a bit different
than before though: I now believe it's appropriate to make this check
first, thereby allowing such a case whether or not we'd consider the
previous SJ(s) to commute with this one. (Presumably, we already decided
they did; but it was confusing to have this consideration in the middle
of the code that was handling the other case.)
Back-patch to all active branches, like the previous patch.
|
|
Commit 85e5e222b1dd02f135a8c3bf387d0d6d88e669bd turns out not to have taken
care of all cases of the partially-evaluatable-PlaceHolderVar problem found
by Andreas Seltenreich's fuzz testing. I had set it up to check for risky
PHVs only in the event that we were making a star-schema-based exception to
the param_source_rels join ordering heuristic. However, it turns out that
the problem can occur even in joins that satisfy the param_source_rels
heuristic, in which case allow_star_schema_join() isn't consulted.
Refactor so that we check for risky PHVs whenever the proposed join has
any remaining parameterization.
Back-patch to 9.2, like the previous patch (except for the regression test
case, which only works back to 9.3 because it uses LATERAL).
Note that this discovery implies that problems of this sort could've
occurred in 9.2 and up even before the star-schema patch; though I've not
tried to prove that experimentally.
|
|
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.
|
|
Formerly, this function would always return "true" for an appendrel child
relation, because it would think that the appendrel parent was a potential
join target for the child. In principle that should only lead to some
inefficiency in planning, but fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich disclosed
that it could lead to "could not find pathkey item to sort" planner errors
in odd corner cases. Specifically, we would think that all columns of a
child table's multicolumn index were interesting pathkeys, causing us to
generate a MergeAppend path that sorts by all the columns. However, if any
of those columns weren't actually used above the level of the appendrel,
they would not get added to that rel's targetlist, which would result in
being unable to resolve the MergeAppend's sort keys against its targetlist
during createplan.c.
Backpatch to 9.3. In older versions, columns of an appendrel get added
to its targetlist even if they're not mentioned above the scan level,
so that the failure doesn't occur. It might be worth back-patching this
fix to older versions anyway, but I'll refrain for the moment.
|
|
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.
|
|
Per the discussion in optimizer/README, it's unsafe to reassociate anything
into or out of the RHS of a SEMI or ANTI join. An example from Piotr
Stefaniak showed that join_is_legal() wasn't sufficiently enforcing this
rule, so lock it down a little harder.
I couldn't find a reasonably simple example of the optimizer trying to
do this, so no new regression test. (Piotr's example involved the random
search in GEQO accidentally trying an invalid case and triggering a sanity
check way downstream in clause selectivity estimation, which did not seem
like a sequence of events that would be useful to memorialize in a
regression test as-is.)
Back-patch to all active branches.
|
|
In commit b514a7460d9127ddda6598307272c701cbb133b7, I changed the planner
so that it would allow nestloop paths to remain partially parameterized,
ie the inner relation might need parameters from both the current outer
relation and some upper-level outer relation. That's fine so long as we're
talking about distinct parameters; but the patch also allowed creation of
nestloop paths for cases where the inner relation's parameter was a
PlaceHolderVar whose eval_at set included the current outer relation and
some upper-level one. That does *not* work.
In principle we could allow such a PlaceHolderVar to be evaluated at the
lower join node using values passed down from the upper relation along with
values from the join's own outer relation. However, nodeNestloop.c only
supports simple Vars not arbitrary expressions as nestloop parameters.
createplan.c is also a few bricks shy of being able to handle such cases;
it misplaces the PlaceHolderVar parameters in the plan tree, which is why
the visible symptoms of this bug are "plan should not reference subplan's
variable" and "failed to assign all NestLoopParams to plan nodes" planner
errors.
Adding the necessary complexity to make this work doesn't seem like it
would be repaid in significantly better plans, because in cases where such
a PHV exists, there is probably a corresponding join order constraint that
would allow a good plan to be found without using the star-schema exception.
Furthermore, adding complexity to nodeNestloop.c would create a run-time
penalty even for plans where this whole consideration is irrelevant.
So let's just reject such paths instead.
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich; the added regression test is based
on his example query. Back-patch to 9.2, like the previous patch.
|
|
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.
|
|
In many cases, we can implement a semijoin as a plain innerjoin by first
passing the righthand-side relation through a unique-ification step.
However, one of the cases where this does NOT work is where the RHS has
a LATERAL reference to the LHS; that makes the RHS dependent on the LHS
so that unique-ification is meaningless. joinpath.c understood this,
and so would not generate any join paths of this kind ... but join_is_legal
neglected to check for the case, so it would think that we could do it.
The upshot would be a "could not devise a query plan for the given query"
failure once we had failed to generate any join paths at all for the bogus
join pair.
Back-patch to 9.3 where LATERAL was added.
|
|
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.
|
|
join_clause_is_movable_into() is approximate, in the sense that it might
sometimes return "false" when actually it would be valid to push the given
join clause down to the specified level. This is okay ... but there was
an Assert in get_joinrel_parampathinfo() that's only safe if the answers
are always exact. Comment out the Assert, and add a bunch of commentary
to clarify what's going on.
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich. The added regression test is
a pretty silly query, but it's based on his crasher example.
Back-patch to 9.2 where the faulty logic was introduced.
|
|
The planner generally expects that the estimated rowcount of any relation
is at least one row, *unless* it has been proven empty by constraint
exclusion or similar mechanisms, which is marked by installing a dummy path
as the rel's cheapest path (cf. IS_DUMMY_REL). When I split up
allpaths.c's processing of base rels into separate set_base_rel_sizes and
set_base_rel_pathlists steps, the intention was that dummy rels would get
marked as such during the "set size" step; this is what justifies an Assert
in indxpath.c's get_loop_count that other relations should either be dummy
or have positive rowcount. Unfortunately I didn't get that quite right
for append relations: if all the child rels have been proven empty then
set_append_rel_size would come up with a rowcount of zero, which is
correct, but it didn't then do set_dummy_rel_pathlist. (We would have
ended up with the right state after set_append_rel_pathlist, but that's
too late, if we generate indexpaths for some other rel first.)
In addition to fixing the actual bug, I installed an Assert enforcing this
convention in set_rel_size; that then allows simplification of a couple
of now-redundant tests for zero rowcount in set_append_rel_size.
Also, to cover the possibility that third-party FDWs have been careless
about not returning a zero rowcount estimate, apply clamp_row_est to
whatever an FDW comes up with as the rows estimate.
Per report from Andreas Seltenreich. Back-patch to 9.2. Earlier branches
did not have the separation between set_base_rel_sizes and
set_base_rel_pathlists steps, so there was no intermediate state where an
appendrel would have had inconsistent rowcount and pathlist. It's possible
that adding the Assert to set_rel_size would be a good idea in older
branches too; but since they're not under development any more, it's likely
not worth the trouble.
|
|
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.
|
|
When the inner side of a nestloop SEMI or ANTI join is an indexscan that
uses all the join clauses as indexquals, it can be presumed that both
matched and unmatched outer rows will be processed very quickly: for
matched rows, we'll stop after fetching one row from the indexscan, while
for unmatched rows we'll have an indexscan that finds no matching index
entries, which should also be quick. The planner already knew about this,
but it was nonetheless charging for at least one full run of the inner
indexscan, as a consequence of concerns about the behavior of materialized
inner scans --- but those concerns don't apply in the fast case. If the
inner side has low cardinality (many matching rows) this could make an
indexscan plan look far more expensive than it actually is. To fix,
rearrange the work in initial_cost_nestloop/final_cost_nestloop so that we
don't add the inner scan cost until we've inspected the indexquals, and
then we can add either the full-run cost or just the first tuple's cost as
appropriate.
Experimentation with this fix uncovered another problem: add_path and
friends were coded to disregard cheap startup cost when considering
parameterized paths. That's usually okay (and desirable, because it thins
the path herd faster); but in this fast case for SEMI/ANTI joins, it could
result in throwing away the desired plain indexscan path in favor of a
bitmap scan path before we ever get to the join costing logic. In the
many-matching-rows cases of interest here, a bitmap scan will do a lot more
work than required, so this is a problem. To fix, add a per-relation flag
consider_param_startup that works like the existing consider_startup flag,
but applies to parameterized paths, and set it for relations that are the
inside of a SEMI or ANTI join.
To make this patch reasonably safe to back-patch, care has been taken to
avoid changing the planner's behavior except in the very narrow case of
SEMI/ANTI joins with inner indexscans. There are places in
compare_path_costs_fuzzily and add_path_precheck that are not terribly
consistent with the new approach, but changing them will affect planner
decisions at the margins in other cases, so we'll leave that for a
HEAD-only fix.
Back-patch to 9.3; before that, the consider_startup flag didn't exist,
meaning that the second aspect of the patch would be too invasive.
Per a complaint from Peter Holzer and analysis by Tomas Vondra.
|
|
An outer join appearing within the RHS of an antijoin can't commute with
the antijoin, but somehow I missed teaching make_outerjoininfo() about
that. In Teodor Sigaev's recent trouble report, this manifests as a
"could not find RelOptInfo for given relids" error within eqjoinsel();
but I think silently wrong query results are possible too, if the planner
misorders the joins and doesn't happen to trigger any internal consistency
checks. It's broken as far back as we had antijoins, so back-patch to all
supported branches.
|
|
The cross-reference to set_append_rel_pathlist() was obsoleted by
commit e2fa76d80ba571d4de8992de6386536867250474, which split what
had been set_rel_pathlist() and child routines into two sets of
functions. But I (tgl) evidently missed updating this comment.
Back-patch to 9.2 to avoid unnecessary divergence among branches.
Amit Langote
|
|
Previously we would re-use input subexpressions in all expression trees
attached to a Join plan node. However, if it's an outer join and the
subexpression appears in the nullable-side input, this is potentially
incorrect for apparently-matching subexpressions that came from above
the outer join (ie, targetlist and qpqual expressions), because the
executor will treat the subexpression value as NULL when maybe it should
not be.
The case is fairly hard to hit because (a) you need a non-strict
subexpression (else NULL is correct), and (b) we don't usually compute
expressions in the outputs of non-toplevel plan nodes. But we might do
so if the expressions are sort keys for a mergejoin, for example.
Probably in the long run we should make a more explicit distinction between
Vars appearing above and below an outer join, but that will be a major
planner redesign and not at all back-patchable. For the moment, just hack
set_join_references so that it will not match any non-Var expressions
coming from nullable inputs to expressions that came from above the join.
(This is somewhat overkill, in that a strict expression could still be
matched, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to check that.)
Per report from Qingqing Zhou. The added regression test case is based
on his example.
This has been broken for a very long time, so back-patch to all active
branches.
|
|
Part of the intent of the parameterized-path mechanism was to handle
star-schema queries efficiently, but some overly-restrictive search
limiting logic added in commit e2fa76d80ba571d4de8992de6386536867250474
prevented such cases from working as desired. Fix that and add a
regression test about it. Per gripe from Marc Cousin.
This is arguably a bug rather than a new feature, so back-patch to 9.2
where parameterized paths were introduced.
|
|
Back in commit 400e2c934457bef4bc3cc9a3e49b6289bd761bc0 I rewrote GEQO's
gimme_tree function to improve its heuristic for modifying the given tour
into a legal join order. In what can only be called a fit of hubris,
I supposed that this new heuristic would *always* find a legal join order,
and ripped out the old logic that allowed gimme_tree to sometimes fail.
The folly of this is exposed by bug #12760, in which the "greedy" clumping
behavior of merge_clump() can lead it into a dead end which could only be
recovered from by un-clumping. We have no code for that and wouldn't know
exactly what to do with it if we did. Rather than try to improve the
heuristic rules still further, let's just recognize that it *is* a
heuristic and probably must always have failure cases. So, put back the
code removed in the previous commit to allow for failure (but comment it
a bit better this time).
It's possible that this code was actually fully correct at the time and
has only been broken by the introduction of LATERAL. But having seen this
example I no longer have much faith in that proposition, so back-patch to
all supported branches.
|
|
Ordinarily we can omit checking of a WHERE condition that matches a partial
index's condition, when we are using an indexscan on that partial index.
However, in SELECT FOR UPDATE we must include the "redundant" filter
condition in the plan so that it gets checked properly in an EvalPlanQual
recheck. The planner got this mostly right, but improperly omitted the
filter condition if the index in question was on an inheritance child
table. In READ COMMITTED mode, this could result in incorrectly returning
just-updated rows that no longer satisfy the filter condition.
The cause of the error is using get_parse_rowmark() when get_plan_rowmark()
is what should be used during planning. In 9.3 and up, also fix the same
mistake in contrib/postgres_fdw. It's currently harmless there (for lack
of inheritance support) but wrong is wrong, and the incorrect code might
get copied to someplace where it's more significant.
Report and fix by Kyotaro Horiguchi. Back-patch to all supported branches.
|
|
postgres_fdw would send query conditions involving system columns to the
remote server, even though it makes no effort to ensure that system
columns other than CTID match what the remote side thinks. tableoid,
in particular, probably won't match and might have some use in queries.
Hence, prevent sending conditions that include non-CTID system columns.
Also, create_foreignscan_plan neglected to check local restriction
conditions while determining whether to set fsSystemCol for a foreign
scan plan node. This again would bollix the results for queries that
test a foreign table's tableoid.
Back-patch the first fix to 9.3 where postgres_fdw was introduced.
Back-patch the second to 9.2. The code is probably broken in 9.1 as
well, but the patch doesn't apply cleanly there; given the weak state
of support for FDWs in 9.1, it doesn't seem worth fixing.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat, and somewhat modified by me
|
|
Since we taught btree to handle ScalarArrayOpExpr quals natively (commit
9e8da0f75731aaa7605cf4656c21ea09e84d2eb1), the planner has always included
ScalarArrayOpExpr quals in index conditions if possible. However, if the
qual is for a non-first index column, this could result in an inferior plan
because we can no longer take advantage of index ordering (cf. commit
807a40c551dd30c8dd5a0b3bd82f5bbb1e7fd285). It can be better to omit the
ScalarArrayOpExpr qual from the index condition and let it be done as a
filter, so that the output doesn't need to get sorted. Indeed, this is
true for the query introduced as a test case by the latter commit.
To fix, restructure get_index_paths and build_index_paths so that we
consider paths both with and without ScalarArrayOpExpr quals in non-first
index columns. Redesign the API of build_index_paths so that it reports
what it found, saving useless second or third calls.
Report and patch by Andrew Gierth (though rather heavily modified by me).
Back-patch to 9.2 where this code was introduced, since the issue can
result in significant performance regressions compared to plans produced
by 9.1 and earlier.
|
|
If an inline-able SQL function taking a composite argument is used in a
LATERAL subselect, and the composite argument is a lateral reference,
the planner could fail with "variable not found in subplan target list",
as seen in bug #11703 from Karl Bartel. (The outer function call used in
the bug report and in the committed regression test is not really necessary
to provoke the bug --- you can get it if you manually expand the outer
function into "LATERAL (SELECT inner_function(outer_relation))", too.)
The cause of this is that we generate the reltargetlist for the referenced
relation before doing eval_const_expressions() on the lateral sub-select's
expressions (cf find_lateral_references()), so what's scheduled to be
emitted by the referenced relation is a whole-row Var, not the simplified
single-column Var produced by optimizing the function's FieldSelect on the
whole-row Var. Then setrefs.c fails to match up that lateral reference to
what's available from the outer scan.
Preserving the FieldSelect optimization in such cases would require either
major planner restructuring (to recursively do expression simplification
on sub-selects much earlier) or some amazingly ugly kluge to change the
reltargetlist of a possibly-already-planned relation. It seems better
just to skip the optimization when the Var is from an upper query level;
the case is not so common that it's likely anyone will notice a few
wasted cycles.
AFAICT this problem only occurs for uplevel LATERAL references, so
back-patch to 9.3 where LATERAL was added.
|
