Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* partition.c
|
|
|
|
* Partitioning related data structures and functions.
|
|
|
|
*
|
2020-01-01 18:21:45 +01:00
|
|
|
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2020, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* IDENTIFICATION
|
|
|
|
* src/backend/catalog/partition.c
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#include "postgres.h"
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-18 08:23:02 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "access/attmap.h"
|
2019-12-27 00:09:00 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "access/genam.h"
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "access/htup_details.h"
|
2019-11-12 04:00:16 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "access/sysattr.h"
|
2019-01-21 19:18:20 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "access/table.h"
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "catalog/indexing.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "catalog/partition.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "catalog/pg_inherits.h"
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "catalog/pg_partitioned_table.h"
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "nodes/makefuncs.h"
|
2019-01-29 21:48:51 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "optimizer/optimizer.h"
|
Faster partition pruning
Add a new module backend/partitioning/partprune.c, implementing a more
sophisticated algorithm for partition pruning. The new module uses each
partition's "boundinfo" for pruning instead of constraint exclusion,
based on an idea proposed by Robert Haas of a "pruning program": a list
of steps generated from the query quals which are run iteratively to
obtain a list of partitions that must be scanned in order to satisfy
those quals.
At present, this targets planner-time partition pruning, but there exist
further patches to apply partition pruning at execution time as well.
This commit also moves some definitions from include/catalog/partition.h
to a new file include/partitioning/partbounds.h, in an attempt to
rationalize partitioning related code.
Authors: Amit Langote, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar
Reviewers: Robert Haas, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Ashutosh Bapat, Jesper Pedersen.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/098b9c71-1915-1a2a-8d52-1a7a50ce79e8@lab.ntt.co.jp
2018-04-06 21:23:04 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "partitioning/partbounds.h"
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "rewrite/rewriteManip.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "utils/fmgroids.h"
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "utils/partcache.h"
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
#include "utils/rel.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "utils/syscache.h"
|
|
|
|
|
2018-03-26 15:43:54 +02:00
|
|
|
static Oid get_partition_parent_worker(Relation inhRel, Oid relid);
|
|
|
|
static void get_partition_ancestors_worker(Relation inhRel, Oid relid,
|
2019-05-22 19:04:48 +02:00
|
|
|
List **ancestors);
|
Add hash partitioning.
Hash partitioning is useful when you want to partition a growing data
set evenly. This can be useful to keep table sizes reasonable, which
makes maintenance operations such as VACUUM faster, or to enable
partition-wise join.
At present, we still depend on constraint exclusion for partitioning
pruning, and the shape of the partition constraints for hash
partitioning is such that that doesn't work. Work is underway to fix
that, which should both improve performance and make partitioning
pruning work with hash partitioning.
Amul Sul, reviewed and tested by Dilip Kumar, Ashutosh Bapat, Yugo
Nagata, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Jesper Pedersen, and by me. A few
final tweaks also by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b96fhpJAP=ALbETmeLk1Uni_GFZD938zgenhF49qgDTjaQ@mail.gmail.com
2017-11-10 00:07:25 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
* get_partition_parent
|
|
|
|
* Obtain direct parent of given relation
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Returns inheritance parent of a partition by scanning pg_inherits
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
*
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
* Note: Because this function assumes that the relation whose OID is passed
|
|
|
|
* as an argument will have precisely one parent, it should only be called
|
|
|
|
* when it is known that the relation is a partition.
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
Oid
|
|
|
|
get_partition_parent(Oid relid)
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
Relation catalogRelation;
|
|
|
|
Oid result;
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2019-01-21 19:32:19 +01:00
|
|
|
catalogRelation = table_open(InheritsRelationId, AccessShareLock);
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
result = get_partition_parent_worker(catalogRelation, relid);
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!OidIsValid(result))
|
|
|
|
elog(ERROR, "could not find tuple for parent of relation %u", relid);
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2019-01-21 19:32:19 +01:00
|
|
|
table_close(catalogRelation, AccessShareLock);
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
return result;
|
|
|
|
}
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* get_partition_parent_worker
|
|
|
|
* Scan the pg_inherits relation to return the OID of the parent of the
|
|
|
|
* given relation
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
static Oid
|
|
|
|
get_partition_parent_worker(Relation inhRel, Oid relid)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
SysScanDesc scan;
|
|
|
|
ScanKeyData key[2];
|
|
|
|
Oid result = InvalidOid;
|
|
|
|
HeapTuple tuple;
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
ScanKeyInit(&key[0],
|
|
|
|
Anum_pg_inherits_inhrelid,
|
|
|
|
BTEqualStrategyNumber, F_OIDEQ,
|
|
|
|
ObjectIdGetDatum(relid));
|
|
|
|
ScanKeyInit(&key[1],
|
|
|
|
Anum_pg_inherits_inhseqno,
|
|
|
|
BTEqualStrategyNumber, F_INT4EQ,
|
|
|
|
Int32GetDatum(1));
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
scan = systable_beginscan(inhRel, InheritsRelidSeqnoIndexId, true,
|
|
|
|
NULL, 2, key);
|
|
|
|
tuple = systable_getnext(scan);
|
|
|
|
if (HeapTupleIsValid(tuple))
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
Form_pg_inherits form = (Form_pg_inherits) GETSTRUCT(tuple);
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
result = form->inhparent;
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
systable_endscan(scan);
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
return result;
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
* get_partition_ancestors
|
|
|
|
* Obtain ancestors of given relation
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
*
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
* Returns a list of ancestors of the given relation.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Note: Because this function assumes that the relation whose OID is passed
|
|
|
|
* as an argument and each ancestor will have precisely one parent, it should
|
|
|
|
* only be called when it is known that the relation is a partition.
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
List *
|
|
|
|
get_partition_ancestors(Oid relid)
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
List *result = NIL;
|
|
|
|
Relation inhRel;
|
2017-01-20 21:47:31 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2019-01-21 19:32:19 +01:00
|
|
|
inhRel = table_open(InheritsRelationId, AccessShareLock);
|
Add hash partitioning.
Hash partitioning is useful when you want to partition a growing data
set evenly. This can be useful to keep table sizes reasonable, which
makes maintenance operations such as VACUUM faster, or to enable
partition-wise join.
At present, we still depend on constraint exclusion for partitioning
pruning, and the shape of the partition constraints for hash
partitioning is such that that doesn't work. Work is underway to fix
that, which should both improve performance and make partitioning
pruning work with hash partitioning.
Amul Sul, reviewed and tested by Dilip Kumar, Ashutosh Bapat, Yugo
Nagata, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Jesper Pedersen, and by me. A few
final tweaks also by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b96fhpJAP=ALbETmeLk1Uni_GFZD938zgenhF49qgDTjaQ@mail.gmail.com
2017-11-10 00:07:25 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
get_partition_ancestors_worker(inhRel, relid, &result);
|
2017-01-20 21:47:31 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2019-01-21 19:32:19 +01:00
|
|
|
table_close(inhRel, AccessShareLock);
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
return result;
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-06 21:27:11 +02:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
* get_partition_ancestors_worker
|
|
|
|
* recursive worker for get_partition_ancestors
|
2017-10-06 21:27:11 +02:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
get_partition_ancestors_worker(Relation inhRel, Oid relid, List **ancestors)
|
2017-10-06 21:27:11 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
Oid parentOid;
|
2017-10-06 21:27:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
/* Recursion ends at the topmost level, ie., when there's no parent */
|
|
|
|
parentOid = get_partition_parent_worker(inhRel, relid);
|
|
|
|
if (parentOid == InvalidOid)
|
|
|
|
return;
|
2017-10-06 21:27:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
*ancestors = lappend_oid(*ancestors, parentOid);
|
|
|
|
get_partition_ancestors_worker(inhRel, parentOid, ancestors);
|
2017-10-06 21:27:11 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2019-03-20 22:18:50 +01:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* index_get_partition
|
|
|
|
* Return the OID of index of the given partition that is a child
|
|
|
|
* of the given index, or InvalidOid if there isn't one.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
Oid
|
|
|
|
index_get_partition(Relation partition, Oid indexId)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
List *idxlist = RelationGetIndexList(partition);
|
|
|
|
ListCell *l;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(l, idxlist)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
Oid partIdx = lfirst_oid(l);
|
|
|
|
HeapTuple tup;
|
|
|
|
Form_pg_class classForm;
|
|
|
|
bool ispartition;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tup = SearchSysCache1(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(partIdx));
|
2019-05-05 19:10:07 +02:00
|
|
|
if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tup))
|
2019-03-20 22:18:50 +01:00
|
|
|
elog(ERROR, "cache lookup failed for relation %u", partIdx);
|
|
|
|
classForm = (Form_pg_class) GETSTRUCT(tup);
|
|
|
|
ispartition = classForm->relispartition;
|
|
|
|
ReleaseSysCache(tup);
|
|
|
|
if (!ispartition)
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
if (get_partition_parent(lfirst_oid(l)) == indexId)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
list_free(idxlist);
|
|
|
|
return partIdx;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return InvalidOid;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
/*
|
2019-12-25 21:44:15 +01:00
|
|
|
* map_partition_varattnos - maps varattnos of all Vars in 'expr' (that have
|
|
|
|
* varno 'fromrel_varno') from the attnums of 'from_rel' to the attnums of
|
|
|
|
* 'to_rel', each of which may be either a leaf partition or a partitioned
|
|
|
|
* table, but both of which must be from the same partitioning hierarchy.
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
*
|
2019-12-25 21:44:15 +01:00
|
|
|
* We need this because even though all of the same column names must be
|
|
|
|
* present in all relations in the hierarchy, and they must also have the
|
|
|
|
* same types, the attnums may be different.
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Note: this will work on any node tree, so really the argument and result
|
|
|
|
* should be declared "Node *". But a substantial majority of the callers
|
|
|
|
* are working on Lists, so it's less messy to do the casts internally.
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
List *
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
map_partition_varattnos(List *expr, int fromrel_varno,
|
2019-12-25 21:44:15 +01:00
|
|
|
Relation to_rel, Relation from_rel)
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (expr != NIL)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2019-12-18 08:23:02 +01:00
|
|
|
AttrMap *part_attmap;
|
2019-12-25 21:44:15 +01:00
|
|
|
bool found_whole_row;
|
2017-11-15 16:23:28 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-18 08:23:02 +01:00
|
|
|
part_attmap = build_attrmap_by_name(RelationGetDescr(to_rel),
|
|
|
|
RelationGetDescr(from_rel));
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
expr = (List *) map_variable_attnos((Node *) expr,
|
|
|
|
fromrel_varno, 0,
|
2019-12-18 08:23:02 +01:00
|
|
|
part_attmap,
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
RelationGetForm(to_rel)->reltype,
|
2019-12-25 21:44:15 +01:00
|
|
|
&found_whole_row);
|
|
|
|
/* Since we provided a to_rowtype, we may ignore found_whole_row. */
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
return expr;
|
Implement table partitioning.
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
2016-12-07 19:17:43 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-01-04 22:25:49 +01:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Checks if any of the 'attnums' is a partition key attribute for rel
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Sets *used_in_expr if any of the 'attnums' is found to be referenced in some
|
|
|
|
* partition key expression. It's possible for a column to be both used
|
|
|
|
* directly and as part of an expression; if that happens, *used_in_expr may
|
|
|
|
* end up as either true or false. That's OK for current uses of this
|
|
|
|
* function, because *used_in_expr is only used to tailor the error message
|
|
|
|
* text.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
bool
|
2018-04-15 02:12:14 +02:00
|
|
|
has_partition_attrs(Relation rel, Bitmapset *attnums, bool *used_in_expr)
|
2018-01-04 22:25:49 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2018-04-26 20:47:16 +02:00
|
|
|
PartitionKey key;
|
2018-01-04 22:25:49 +01:00
|
|
|
int partnatts;
|
|
|
|
List *partexprs;
|
|
|
|
ListCell *partexprs_item;
|
|
|
|
int i;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (attnums == NULL || rel->rd_rel->relkind != RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE)
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
key = RelationGetPartitionKey(rel);
|
|
|
|
partnatts = get_partition_natts(key);
|
|
|
|
partexprs = get_partition_exprs(key);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
partexprs_item = list_head(partexprs);
|
|
|
|
for (i = 0; i < partnatts; i++)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
AttrNumber partattno = get_partition_col_attnum(key, i);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (partattno != 0)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (bms_is_member(partattno - FirstLowInvalidHeapAttributeNumber,
|
|
|
|
attnums))
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (used_in_expr)
|
|
|
|
*used_in_expr = false;
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
/* Arbitrary expression */
|
|
|
|
Node *expr = (Node *) lfirst(partexprs_item);
|
|
|
|
Bitmapset *expr_attrs = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Find all attributes referenced */
|
|
|
|
pull_varattnos(expr, 1, &expr_attrs);
|
Represent Lists as expansible arrays, not chains of cons-cells.
Originally, Postgres Lists were a more or less exact reimplementation of
Lisp lists, which consist of chains of separately-allocated cons cells,
each having a value and a next-cell link. We'd hacked that once before
(commit d0b4399d8) to add a separate List header, but the data was still
in cons cells. That makes some operations -- notably list_nth() -- O(N),
and it's bulky because of the next-cell pointers and per-cell palloc
overhead, and it's very cache-unfriendly if the cons cells end up
scattered around rather than being adjacent.
In this rewrite, we still have List headers, but the data is in a
resizable array of values, with no next-cell links. Now we need at
most two palloc's per List, and often only one, since we can allocate
some values in the same palloc call as the List header. (Of course,
extending an existing List may require repalloc's to enlarge the array.
But this involves just O(log N) allocations not O(N).)
Of course this is not without downsides. The key difficulty is that
addition or deletion of a list entry may now cause other entries to
move, which it did not before.
For example, that breaks foreach() and sister macros, which historically
used a pointer to the current cons-cell as loop state. We can repair
those macros transparently by making their actual loop state be an
integer list index; the exposed "ListCell *" pointer is no longer state
carried across loop iterations, but is just a derived value. (In
practice, modern compilers can optimize things back to having just one
loop state value, at least for simple cases with inline loop bodies.)
In principle, this is a semantics change for cases where the loop body
inserts or deletes list entries ahead of the current loop index; but
I found no such cases in the Postgres code.
The change is not at all transparent for code that doesn't use foreach()
but chases lists "by hand" using lnext(). The largest share of such
code in the backend is in loops that were maintaining "prev" and "next"
variables in addition to the current-cell pointer, in order to delete
list cells efficiently using list_delete_cell(). However, we no longer
need a previous-cell pointer to delete a list cell efficiently. Keeping
a next-cell pointer doesn't work, as explained above, but we can improve
matters by changing such code to use a regular foreach() loop and then
using the new macro foreach_delete_current() to delete the current cell.
(This macro knows how to update the associated foreach loop's state so
that no cells will be missed in the traversal.)
There remains a nontrivial risk of code assuming that a ListCell *
pointer will remain good over an operation that could now move the list
contents. To help catch such errors, list.c can be compiled with a new
define symbol DEBUG_LIST_MEMORY_USAGE that forcibly moves list contents
whenever that could possibly happen. This makes list operations
significantly more expensive so it's not normally turned on (though it
is on by default if USE_VALGRIND is on).
There are two notable API differences from the previous code:
* lnext() now requires the List's header pointer in addition to the
current cell's address.
* list_delete_cell() no longer requires a previous-cell argument.
These changes are somewhat unfortunate, but on the other hand code using
either function needs inspection to see if it is assuming anything
it shouldn't, so it's not all bad.
Programmers should be aware of these significant performance changes:
* list_nth() and related functions are now O(1); so there's no
major access-speed difference between a list and an array.
* Inserting or deleting a list element now takes time proportional to
the distance to the end of the list, due to moving the array elements.
(However, it typically *doesn't* require palloc or pfree, so except in
long lists it's probably still faster than before.) Notably, lcons()
used to be about the same cost as lappend(), but that's no longer true
if the list is long. Code that uses lcons() and list_delete_first()
to maintain a stack might usefully be rewritten to push and pop at the
end of the list rather than the beginning.
* There are now list_insert_nth...() and list_delete_nth...() functions
that add or remove a list cell identified by index. These have the
data-movement penalty explained above, but there's no search penalty.
* list_concat() and variants now copy the second list's data into
storage belonging to the first list, so there is no longer any
sharing of cells between the input lists. The second argument is
now declared "const List *" to reflect that it isn't changed.
This patch just does the minimum needed to get the new implementation
in place and fix bugs exposed by the regression tests. As suggested
by the foregoing, there's a fair amount of followup work remaining to
do.
Also, the ENABLE_LIST_COMPAT macros are finally removed in this
commit. Code using those should have been gone a dozen years ago.
Patch by me; thanks to David Rowley, Jesper Pedersen, and others
for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11587.1550975080@sss.pgh.pa.us
2019-07-15 19:41:58 +02:00
|
|
|
partexprs_item = lnext(partexprs, partexprs_item);
|
2018-01-04 22:25:49 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (bms_overlap(attnums, expr_attrs))
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (used_in_expr)
|
|
|
|
*used_in_expr = true;
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* get_default_partition_oid
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Given a relation OID, return the OID of the default partition, if one
|
|
|
|
* exists. Use get_default_oid_from_partdesc where possible, for
|
|
|
|
* efficiency.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
Oid
|
|
|
|
get_default_partition_oid(Oid parentId)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
HeapTuple tuple;
|
|
|
|
Oid defaultPartId = InvalidOid;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tuple = SearchSysCache1(PARTRELID, ObjectIdGetDatum(parentId));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (HeapTupleIsValid(tuple))
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
Form_pg_partitioned_table part_table_form;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
part_table_form = (Form_pg_partitioned_table) GETSTRUCT(tuple);
|
|
|
|
defaultPartId = part_table_form->partdefid;
|
2017-10-28 11:10:21 +02:00
|
|
|
ReleaseSysCache(tuple);
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return defaultPartId;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* update_default_partition_oid
|
|
|
|
*
|
2019-06-17 09:13:16 +02:00
|
|
|
* Update pg_partitioned_table.partdefid with a new default partition OID.
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
void
|
|
|
|
update_default_partition_oid(Oid parentId, Oid defaultPartId)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
HeapTuple tuple;
|
|
|
|
Relation pg_partitioned_table;
|
|
|
|
Form_pg_partitioned_table part_table_form;
|
|
|
|
|
2019-01-21 19:32:19 +01:00
|
|
|
pg_partitioned_table = table_open(PartitionedRelationId, RowExclusiveLock);
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tuple = SearchSysCacheCopy1(PARTRELID, ObjectIdGetDatum(parentId));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tuple))
|
|
|
|
elog(ERROR, "cache lookup failed for partition key of relation %u",
|
|
|
|
parentId);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
part_table_form = (Form_pg_partitioned_table) GETSTRUCT(tuple);
|
|
|
|
part_table_form->partdefid = defaultPartId;
|
|
|
|
CatalogTupleUpdate(pg_partitioned_table, &tuple->t_self, tuple);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
heap_freetuple(tuple);
|
2019-01-21 19:32:19 +01:00
|
|
|
table_close(pg_partitioned_table, RowExclusiveLock);
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* get_proposed_default_constraint
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* This function returns the negation of new_part_constraints, which
|
|
|
|
* would be an integral part of the default partition constraints after
|
|
|
|
* addition of the partition to which the new_part_constraints belongs.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
List *
|
|
|
|
get_proposed_default_constraint(List *new_part_constraints)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
Expr *defPartConstraint;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
defPartConstraint = make_ands_explicit(new_part_constraints);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Derive the partition constraints of default partition by negating the
|
|
|
|
* given partition constraints. The partition constraint never evaluates
|
|
|
|
* to NULL, so negating it like this is safe.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
defPartConstraint = makeBoolExpr(NOT_EXPR,
|
|
|
|
list_make1(defPartConstraint),
|
|
|
|
-1);
|
Fix improper uses of canonicalize_qual().
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
2018-03-11 23:10:42 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Simplify, to put the negated expression into canonical form */
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
defPartConstraint =
|
|
|
|
(Expr *) eval_const_expressions(NULL,
|
|
|
|
(Node *) defPartConstraint);
|
Fix improper uses of canonicalize_qual().
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
2018-03-11 23:10:42 +01:00
|
|
|
defPartConstraint = canonicalize_qual(defPartConstraint, true);
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Fix improper uses of canonicalize_qual().
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
2018-03-11 23:10:42 +01:00
|
|
|
return make_ands_implicit(defPartConstraint);
|
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
Any tuples that don't route to any other partition will route to the
default partition.
Jeevan Ladhe, Beena Emerson, Ashutosh Bapat, Rahila Syed, and Robert
Haas, with review and testing at various stages by (at least) Rushabh
Lathia, Keith Fiske, Amit Langote, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuanshi, Sven
Kunze, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thom Brown, Rafia Sabih, and Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2L28tbN4SYyhS7YV1YBWcitkqbhSWfQCy0G=apRcC_PEO-bg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApEYj34fWMcvBMBQ-YtqR9fTdXhdN82QEKG0SVZ6zeL1xg@mail.gmail.com
2017-09-08 23:28:04 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|