| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
join_is_legal() needs to reject forming certain outer joins in cases
where that would lead the planner down a blind alley. However, it
mistakenly supposed that the way to handle full joins was to treat them
as applying the same constraints as for left joins, only to both sides.
That doesn't work, as shown in bug #15741 from Anthony Skorski: given
a lateral reference out of a join that's fully enclosed by a full join,
the code would fail to believe that any join ordering is legal, resulting
in errors like "failed to build any N-way joins".
However, we don't really need to consider full joins at all for this
purpose, because we effectively force them to be evaluated in syntactic
order, and that order is always legal for lateral references. Hence,
get rid of this broken logic for full joins and just ignore them instead.
This seems to have been an oversight in commit 7e19db0c0.
Back-patch to all supported branches, as that was.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15741-276f1f464b3f40eb@postgresql.org
|
|
The assertions added by commits 34ea1ab7f et al found another problem:
set_dummy_rel_pathlist and mark_dummy_rel were failing to label
the dummy paths they create with the correct outer_relids, in case
the relation is necessarily parameterized due to having lateral
references in its tlist. It's likely that this has no user-visible
consequences in production builds, at the moment; but still an assertion
failure is a bad thing, so back-patch the fix.
Per bug #15694 from Roman Zharkov (via Alexander Lakhin)
and an independent report by Tushar Ahuja.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15694-74f2ca97e7044f7f@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7d72ab20-c725-3ce2-f99d-4e64dd8a0de6@enterprisedb.com
|
|
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
|
|
As reported in bug #15613 from Srinivasan S A, file_fdw and postgres_fdw
neglected to mark plain baserel foreign paths as parameterized when the
relation has lateral_relids. Other FDWs have surely copied this mistake,
so rather than just patching those two modules, install a band-aid fix
in create_foreignscan_path to rectify the mistake centrally.
Although the band-aid is enough to fix the visible symptom, correct
the calls in file_fdw and postgres_fdw anyway, so that they are valid
examples for external FDWs.
Also, since the band-aid isn't enough to make this work for parameterized
foreign joins, throw an elog(ERROR) if such a case is passed to
create_foreignscan_path. This shouldn't pose much of a problem for
existing external FDWs, since it's likely they aren't trying to make such
paths anyway (though some of them may need a defense against joins with
lateral_relids, similar to the one this patch installs into postgres_fdw).
Add some assertions in relnode.c to catch future occurrences of the same
error --- in particular, as backstop against core-code mistakes like the
one fixed by commit bdd9a99aa.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15613-092be1be9576c728@postgresql.org
|
|
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
|
|
MinMaxExpr invokes the btree comparison function for its input datatype,
so it's only leakproof if that function is. Many such functions are
indeed leakproof, but others are not, and we should not just assume that
they are. Hence, adjust contain_leaked_vars to verify the leakproofness
of the referenced function explicitly.
I didn't add a regression test because it would need to depend on
some particular comparison function being leaky, and that's a moving
target, per discussion.
This has been wrong all along, so back-patch to supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/31042.1546194242@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
"rescanratio" was computed as 1 + rescanned-tuples / total-inner-tuples,
which is sensible if it's to be multiplied by total-inner-tuples or a cost
value corresponding to scanning all the inner tuples. But in reality it
was (mostly) multiplied by inner_rows or a related cost, numbers that take
into account the possibility of stopping short of scanning the whole inner
relation thanks to a limited key range in the outer relation. This'd
still make sense if we could expect that stopping short would result in a
proportional decrease in the number of tuples that have to be rescanned.
It does not, however. The argument that establishes the validity of our
estimate for that number is independent of whether we scan all of the inner
relation or stop short, and experimentation also shows that stopping short
doesn't reduce the number of rescanned tuples. So the correct calculation
is 1 + rescanned-tuples / inner_rows, and we should be sure to multiply
that by inner_rows or a corresponding cost value.
Most of the time this doesn't make much difference, but if we have
both a high rescan rate (due to lots of duplicate values) and an outer
key range much smaller than the inner key range, then the error can
be significant, leading to a large underestimate of the cost associated
with rescanning.
Per report from Vijaykumar Jain. This thinko appears to go all the way
back to the introduction of the rescan estimation logic in commit
70fba7043, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAE7uO5hMb_TZYJcZmLAgO6iD68AkEK6qCe7i=vZUkCpoKns+EQ@mail.gmail.com
|
|
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
|
|
classify_index_clause_usage() is O(N^2) in the number of distinct index
qual clauses it considers, because of its use of a simple search list to
store them. For nearly all queries, that's fine because only a few clauses
will be considered. But Alexander Kuzmenkov reported a machine-generated
query with 80000 (!) index qual clauses, which caused this code to take
forever. Somewhat remarkably, this is the only O(N^2) behavior we now
have for such a query, so let's fix it.
We can get rid of the O(N^2) runtime for cases like this without much
damage to the functionality of choose_bitmap_and() by separating out
paths with "too many" qual or pred clauses, and deeming them to always
be nonredundant with other paths. Then their clauses needn't go into
the search list, so it doesn't get too long, but we don't lose the
ability to consider bitmap AND plans altogether. I set the threshold
for "too many" to be 100 clauses per path, which should be plenty to
ensure no change in planning behavior for normal queries.
There are other things we could do to make this go faster, but it's not
clear that it's worth any additional effort. 80000 qual clauses require
a whole lot of work in many other places, too.
The code's been like this for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches. The troublesome query only works back to 9.5 (in 9.4 it fails
with stack overflow in the parser); so I'm not sure that fixing this in
9.4 has any real-world benefit, but perhaps it does.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/90c5bdfa-d633-dabe-9889-3cf3e1acd443@postgrespro.ru
|
|
GatherMergePath (introduced in 10) and CustomPath (introduced in 9.5)
have gone missing. The order of the Path nodes was inconsistent with
what is listed in nodes.h, so make the order consistent at the same time
to ease future checks and additions.
Author: Sawada Masahiko
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAD21AoBQMLoc=ohH-oocuAPsELrmk8_EsRJjOyR8FQLZkbE0wA@mail.gmail.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
|
|
Since 9.5, it's possible that some but not all columns of an index
support returning the indexed value for index-only scans. If the
same indexed column appears in index columns that behave both ways,
check_index_only() supposed that it'd be OK to do an index-only scan
testing that column; but that fails if we have to recheck the indexed
condition on one of the columns that doesn't support this.
In principle we could make this work by remapping the recheck expressions
to pull the value from a column that does support returning the indexed
value. But such cases are so weird and rare that, at least for now,
it doesn't seem worth the trouble. Instead, just teach check_index_only
that a value is returnable only if all the index columns containing it
are returnable, rather than any of them.
Per report from David Pereiro Lagares. Back-patch to 9.5 where the
possibility of this situation appeared.
Kyotaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1516210494.1798.16.camel@nlpgo.com
|
|
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
|
|
If we flatten a subquery whose target list contains constants or
expressions, when those output columns are used in GROUPING SET columns,
the planner was capable of doing the wrong thing by merging a pulled-up
expression into the surrounding expression during const-simplification.
Then the late processing that attempts to match subexpressions to grouping
sets would fail to match those subexpressions to grouping sets, with the
effect that they'd not go to null when expected.
To fix, wrap such subquery outputs in PlaceHolderVars, ensuring that
they preserve their separate identity throughout the planner's expression
processing. This is a bit of a band-aid, because the wrapper defeats
const-simplification even in places where it would be safe to allow.
But a nicer fix would likely be too invasive to back-patch, and the
consequences of the missed optimizations probably aren't large in most
cases.
Back-patch to 9.5 where grouping sets were introduced.
Heikki Linnakangas, with small mods and better test cases by me;
additional review by Andrew Gierth
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7dbdcf5c-b5a6-ef89-4958-da212fe10176@iki.fi
|
|
Since 9.4, we've allowed the syntax "select union select" and variants
of that. However, the planner wasn't expecting a no-column set operation
and ended up treating the set operation as if it were UNION ALL.
Pre-v10, there seem to be some executor issues that would need to be
fixed to support such cases, and it doesn't really seem worth expending
much effort on. Just disallow it, instead.
Per report from Victor Yegorov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGnEbojGJrRSOgJwNGM7JSJZpVAf8xXcVPbVrGdhbVEHZ-BUMw@mail.gmail.com
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
In the previous coding, if an aggregate's transition function returned an
expanded array, nodeAgg.c and nodeWindowAgg.c would always copy it and thus
force it into the flat representation. This led to ping-ponging between
flat and expanded formats, which costs a lot. For an aggregate using
array_append as transition function, I measured about a 15X slowdown
compared to the pre-9.5 code, when working on simple int[] arrays.
Of course, the old code was already O(N^2) in this usage due to copying
flat arrays all the time, but it wasn't quite this inefficient.
To fix, teach nodeAgg.c and nodeWindowAgg.c to allow expanded transition
values without copying, so long as the transition function takes care to
return the transition value already properly parented under the aggcontext.
That puts a bit of extra responsibility on the transition function, but
doing it this way allows us to not need any extra logic in the fast path
of advance_transition_function (ie, with a pass-by-value transition value,
or with a modified-in-place pass-by-reference value). We already know
that that's a hot spot so I'm loath to add any cycles at all there. Also,
while only array_append currently knows how to follow this convention,
this solution allows other transition functions to opt-in without needing
to have a whitelist in the core aggregation code.
(The reason we would need a whitelist is that currently, if you pass a
R/W expanded-object pointer to an arbitrary function, it's allowed to do
anything with it including deleting it; that breaks the core agg code's
assumption that it should free discarded values. Returning a value under
aggcontext is the transition function's signal that it knows it is an
aggregate transition function and will play nice. Possibly the API rules
for expanded objects should be refined, but that would not be a
back-patchable change.)
With this fix, an aggregate using array_append is no longer O(N^2), so it's
much faster than pre-9.5 code rather than much slower. It's still a bit
slower than the bespoke infrastructure for array_agg, but the differential
seems to be only about 10%-20% rather than orders of magnitude.
Discussion: <6315.1477677885@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
|
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>
|
|
While it could be argued that rejecting system column mentions in the
ON CONFLICT list is an unsupported feature, falling over altogether
just because the table has a unique index on OID is indubitably a bug.
As far as I can tell, fixing infer_arbiter_indexes() is sufficient to
make ON CONFLICT (oid) actually work, though making a regression test
for that case is problematic because of the impossibility of setting
the OID counter to a known value.
Minor cosmetic cleanups along with the bug fix.
|
|
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 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.
|
|
When converting an RTE with securityQuals into a security barrier
subquery RTE, ensure that the Vars in the new subquery's targetlist
all have varlevelsup = 0 so that they correctly refer to the
underlying base relation being wrapped.
The original code was creating new Vars by copying them from existing
Vars referencing the base relation found elsewhere in the query, but
failed to account for the fact that such Vars could come from sublink
subqueries, and hence have varlevelsup > 0. In practice it looks like
this could only happen with nested security barrier views, where the
outer view has a WHERE clause containing a correlated subquery, due to
the order in which the Vars are processed.
Bug: #13988
Reported-by: Adam Guthrie
Backpatch-to: 9.4, where updatable SB views were introduced
|
|
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
|
|
Putting a reference to an expanded-format value into a Const node would be
a bad idea for a couple of reasons. It'd be possible for the supposedly
immutable Const to change value, if something modified the referenced
variable ... in fact, if the Const's reference were R/W, any function that
has the Const as argument might itself change it at runtime. Also, because
datumIsEqual() is pretty simplistic, the Const might fail to compare equal
to other Consts that it should compare equal to, notably including copies
of itself. This could lead to unexpected planner behavior, such as "could
not find pathkey item to sort" errors or inferior plans.
I have not been able to find any way to get an expanded value into a Const
within the existing core code; but Paul Ramsey was able to trigger the
problem by writing a datatype input function that returns an expanded
value.
The best fix seems to be to establish a rule that varlena values being
placed into Const nodes should be passed through pg_detoast_datum().
That will do nothing (and cost little) in normal cases, but it will flatten
expanded values and thereby avoid the above problems. Also, it will
convert short-header or compressed values into canonical format, which will
avoid possible unexpected lack-of-equality issues for those cases too.
And it provides a last-ditch defense against putting a toasted value into
a Const, which we already knew was dangerous, cf commit 2b0c86b66563cf2f.
(In the light of this discussion, I'm no longer sure that that commit
provided 100% protection against such cases, but this fix should do it.)
The test added in commit 65c3d05e18e7c530 to catch datatype input functions
with unstable results would fail for functions that returned expanded
values; but it seems a bit uncharitable to deem a result unstable just
because it's expressed in expanded form, so revise the coding so that we
check for bitwise equality only after applying pg_detoast_datum(). That's
a sufficient condition anyway given the new rule about detoasting when
forming a Const.
Back-patch to 9.5 where the expanded-object facility was added. It's
possible that this should go back further; but in the absence of clear
evidence that there's any live bug in older branches, I'll refrain for now.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.)
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
During expand_security_quals, we take the security barrier quals on an
RTE and create a subquery which evaluates the quals. During this, we
have to replace any variables in the outer query which refer to the
original RTE with references to the columns from the subquery.
We need to also perform that replacement for any Vars in the
append_rel_list.
Only backpatching to 9.5 as we only go through this process in 9.4 for
auto-updatable security barrier views, which UNION ALL queries aren't.
Discovered by Haribabu Kommi
Patch by Dean Rasheed
|
|
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
|
|
Etsuro Fujita spotted a thinko in the README commentary.
|
