postgresql/src/backend/executor/nodeSamplescan.c

566 lines
14 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* nodeSamplescan.c
* Support routines for sample scans of relations (table sampling).
*
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2019, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
*
*
* IDENTIFICATION
* src/backend/executor/nodeSamplescan.c
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
#include "postgres.h"
2019-01-15 00:54:18 +01:00
#include "access/heapam.h"
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
#include "access/relscan.h"
#include "access/tsmapi.h"
#include "executor/executor.h"
#include "executor/nodeSamplescan.h"
#include "miscadmin.h"
#include "pgstat.h"
#include "storage/bufmgr.h"
#include "storage/predicate.h"
#include "utils/builtins.h"
#include "utils/rel.h"
static TupleTableSlot *SampleNext(SampleScanState *node);
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
static void tablesample_init(SampleScanState *scanstate);
static HeapTuple tablesample_getnext(SampleScanState *scanstate);
static bool SampleTupleVisible(HeapTuple tuple, OffsetNumber tupoffset,
HeapScanDesc scan);
/* ----------------------------------------------------------------
* Scan Support
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
*/
/* ----------------------------------------------------------------
* SampleNext
*
* This is a workhorse for ExecSampleScan
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
*/
static TupleTableSlot *
SampleNext(SampleScanState *node)
{
2015-05-24 03:35:49 +02:00
HeapTuple tuple;
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
TupleTableSlot *slot;
/*
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
* if this is first call within a scan, initialize
*/
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
if (!node->begun)
tablesample_init(node);
/*
* get the next tuple, and store it in our result slot
*/
tuple = tablesample_getnext(node);
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
slot = node->ss.ss_ScanTupleSlot;
if (tuple)
ExecStoreBufferHeapTuple(tuple, /* tuple to store */
slot, /* slot to store in */
node->ss.ss_currentScanDesc->rs_cbuf); /* tuple's buffer */
else
ExecClearTuple(slot);
return slot;
}
/*
* SampleRecheck -- access method routine to recheck a tuple in EvalPlanQual
*/
static bool
SampleRecheck(SampleScanState *node, TupleTableSlot *slot)
{
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
/*
* No need to recheck for SampleScan, since like SeqScan we don't pass any
* checkable keys to heap_beginscan.
*/
return true;
}
/* ----------------------------------------------------------------
* ExecSampleScan(node)
*
* Scans the relation using the sampling method and returns
* the next qualifying tuple.
* We call the ExecScan() routine and pass it the appropriate
* access method functions.
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
*/
static TupleTableSlot *
ExecSampleScan(PlanState *pstate)
{
SampleScanState *node = castNode(SampleScanState, pstate);
return ExecScan(&node->ss,
(ExecScanAccessMtd) SampleNext,
(ExecScanRecheckMtd) SampleRecheck);
}
/* ----------------------------------------------------------------
* ExecInitSampleScan
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
*/
SampleScanState *
ExecInitSampleScan(SampleScan *node, EState *estate, int eflags)
{
SampleScanState *scanstate;
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
TableSampleClause *tsc = node->tablesample;
TsmRoutine *tsm;
Assert(outerPlan(node) == NULL);
Assert(innerPlan(node) == NULL);
/*
* create state structure
*/
scanstate = makeNode(SampleScanState);
scanstate->ss.ps.plan = (Plan *) node;
scanstate->ss.ps.state = estate;
scanstate->ss.ps.ExecProcNode = ExecSampleScan;
/*
* Miscellaneous initialization
*
* create expression context for node
*/
ExecAssignExprContext(estate, &scanstate->ss.ps);
/*
* open the scan relation
*/
scanstate->ss.ss_currentRelation =
ExecOpenScanRelation(estate,
node->scan.scanrelid,
eflags);
Faster expression evaluation and targetlist projection. This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation. Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation. This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier. The speed gains primarily come from: - non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead - simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without function calls - sharing some state between different sub-expressions - reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of nearly all of the previously used linked lists - more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding constant re-checks at evaluation time Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation. The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.: - basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where initialization overhead is measurable. - optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential work has already been made. - optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have been made here too. The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some backward-incompatible changes: - Function permission checks are now done during expression initialization, whereas previously they were done during execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a different array type previously didn't perform checks. - The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once during expression initialization, previously it was re-built every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior around might still change. Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane, changes by Heikki Linnakangas Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
2017-03-14 23:45:36 +01:00
/* we won't set up the HeapScanDesc till later */
scanstate->ss.ss_currentScanDesc = NULL;
/* and create slot with appropriate rowtype */
ExecInitScanTupleSlot(estate, &scanstate->ss,
Introduce notion of different types of slots (without implementing them). Upcoming work intends to allow pluggable ways to introduce new ways of storing table data. Accessing those table access methods from the executor requires TupleTableSlots to be carry tuples in the native format of such storage methods; otherwise there'll be a significant conversion overhead. Different access methods will require different data to store tuples efficiently (just like virtual, minimal, heap already require fields in TupleTableSlot). To allow that without requiring additional pointer indirections, we want to have different structs (embedding TupleTableSlot) for different types of slots. Thus different types of slots are needed, which requires adapting creators of slots. The slot that most efficiently can represent a type of tuple in an executor node will often depend on the type of slot a child node uses. Therefore we need to track the type of slot is returned by nodes, so parent slots can create slots based on that. Relatedly, JIT compilation of tuple deforming needs to know which type of slot a certain expression refers to, so it can create an appropriate deforming function for the type of tuple in the slot. But not all nodes will only return one type of slot, e.g. an append node will potentially return different types of slots for each of its subplans. Therefore add function that allows to query the type of a node's result slot, and whether it'll always be the same type (whether it's fixed). This can be queried using ExecGetResultSlotOps(). The scan, result, inner, outer type of slots are automatically inferred from ExecInitScanTupleSlot(), ExecInitResultSlot(), left/right subtrees respectively. If that's not correct for a node, that can be overwritten using new fields in PlanState. This commit does not introduce the actually abstracted implementation of different kind of TupleTableSlots, that will be left for a followup commit. The different types of slots introduced will, for now, still use the same backing implementation. While this already partially invalidates the big comment in tuptable.h, it seems to make more sense to update it later, when the different TupleTableSlot implementations actually exist. Author: Ashutosh Bapat and Andres Freund, with changes by Amit Khandekar Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
2018-11-16 07:00:30 +01:00
RelationGetDescr(scanstate->ss.ss_currentRelation),
Make TupleTableSlots extensible, finish split of existing slot type. This commit completes the work prepared in 1a0586de36, splitting the old TupleTableSlot implementation (which could store buffer, heap, minimal and virtual slots) into four different slot types. As described in the aforementioned commit, this is done with the goal of making tuple table slots extensible, to allow for pluggable table access methods. To achieve runtime extensibility for TupleTableSlots, operations on slots that can differ between types of slots are performed using the TupleTableSlotOps struct provided at slot creation time. That includes information from the size of TupleTableSlot struct to be allocated, initialization, deforming etc. See the struct's definition for more detailed information about callbacks TupleTableSlotOps. I decided to rename TTSOpsBufferTuple to TTSOpsBufferHeapTuple and ExecCopySlotTuple to ExecCopySlotHeapTuple, as that seems more consistent with other naming introduced in recent patches. There's plenty optimization potential in the slot implementation, but according to benchmarking the state after this commit has similar performance characteristics to before this set of changes, which seems sufficient. There's a few changes in execReplication.c that currently need to poke through the slot abstraction, that'll be repaired once the pluggable storage patchset provides the necessary infrastructure. Author: Andres Freund and Ashutosh Bapat, with changes by Amit Khandekar Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
2018-11-17 01:35:11 +01:00
&TTSOpsBufferHeapTuple);
/*
Don't require return slots for nodes without projection. In a lot of nodes the return slot is not required. That can either be because the node doesn't do any projection (say an Append node), or because the node does perform projections but the projection is optimized away because the projection would yield an identical row. Slots aren't that small, especially for wide rows, so it's worthwhile to avoid creating them. It's not possible to just skip creating the slot - it's currently used to determine the tuple descriptor returned by ExecGetResultType(). So separate the determination of the result type from the slot creation. The work previously done internally ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() can now also be done separately with ExecInitResultTypeTL() and ExecInitResultSlot(). That way nodes that aren't guaranteed to need a result slot, can use ExecInitResultTypeTL() to determine the result type of the node, and ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo() (via ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo()) determines that a result slot is needed, it is created with ExecInitResultSlot(). Besides the advantage of avoiding to create slots that then are unused, this is necessary preparation for later patches around tuple table slot abstraction. In particular separating the return descriptor and slot is a prerequisite to allow JITing of tuple deforming with knowledge of the underlying tuple format, and to avoid unnecessarily creating JITed tuple deforming for virtual slots. This commit removes a redundant argument from ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL(). While this commit touches a lot of the relevant lines anyway, it'd normally still not worthwhile to cause breakage, except that aforementioned later commits will touch *all* ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() callers anyway (but fits worse thematically). Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
2018-11-10 02:19:39 +01:00
* Initialize result type and projection.
*/
Don't require return slots for nodes without projection. In a lot of nodes the return slot is not required. That can either be because the node doesn't do any projection (say an Append node), or because the node does perform projections but the projection is optimized away because the projection would yield an identical row. Slots aren't that small, especially for wide rows, so it's worthwhile to avoid creating them. It's not possible to just skip creating the slot - it's currently used to determine the tuple descriptor returned by ExecGetResultType(). So separate the determination of the result type from the slot creation. The work previously done internally ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() can now also be done separately with ExecInitResultTypeTL() and ExecInitResultSlot(). That way nodes that aren't guaranteed to need a result slot, can use ExecInitResultTypeTL() to determine the result type of the node, and ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo() (via ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo()) determines that a result slot is needed, it is created with ExecInitResultSlot(). Besides the advantage of avoiding to create slots that then are unused, this is necessary preparation for later patches around tuple table slot abstraction. In particular separating the return descriptor and slot is a prerequisite to allow JITing of tuple deforming with knowledge of the underlying tuple format, and to avoid unnecessarily creating JITed tuple deforming for virtual slots. This commit removes a redundant argument from ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL(). While this commit touches a lot of the relevant lines anyway, it'd normally still not worthwhile to cause breakage, except that aforementioned later commits will touch *all* ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() callers anyway (but fits worse thematically). Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
2018-11-10 02:19:39 +01:00
ExecInitResultTypeTL(&scanstate->ss.ps);
ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo(&scanstate->ss);
/*
* initialize child expressions
*/
scanstate->ss.ps.qual =
ExecInitQual(node->scan.plan.qual, (PlanState *) scanstate);
scanstate->args = ExecInitExprList(tsc->args, (PlanState *) scanstate);
scanstate->repeatable =
ExecInitExpr(tsc->repeatable, (PlanState *) scanstate);
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
/*
* If we don't have a REPEATABLE clause, select a random seed. We want to
* do this just once, since the seed shouldn't change over rescans.
*/
if (tsc->repeatable == NULL)
scanstate->seed = random();
/*
* Finally, initialize the TABLESAMPLE method handler.
*/
tsm = GetTsmRoutine(tsc->tsmhandler);
scanstate->tsmroutine = tsm;
scanstate->tsm_state = NULL;
if (tsm->InitSampleScan)
tsm->InitSampleScan(scanstate, eflags);
/* We'll do BeginSampleScan later; we can't evaluate params yet */
scanstate->begun = false;
return scanstate;
}
/* ----------------------------------------------------------------
* ExecEndSampleScan
*
* frees any storage allocated through C routines.
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
*/
void
ExecEndSampleScan(SampleScanState *node)
{
/*
* Tell sampling function that we finished the scan.
*/
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
if (node->tsmroutine->EndSampleScan)
node->tsmroutine->EndSampleScan(node);
/*
* Free the exprcontext
*/
ExecFreeExprContext(&node->ss.ps);
/*
* clean out the tuple table
*/
Don't require return slots for nodes without projection. In a lot of nodes the return slot is not required. That can either be because the node doesn't do any projection (say an Append node), or because the node does perform projections but the projection is optimized away because the projection would yield an identical row. Slots aren't that small, especially for wide rows, so it's worthwhile to avoid creating them. It's not possible to just skip creating the slot - it's currently used to determine the tuple descriptor returned by ExecGetResultType(). So separate the determination of the result type from the slot creation. The work previously done internally ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() can now also be done separately with ExecInitResultTypeTL() and ExecInitResultSlot(). That way nodes that aren't guaranteed to need a result slot, can use ExecInitResultTypeTL() to determine the result type of the node, and ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo() (via ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo()) determines that a result slot is needed, it is created with ExecInitResultSlot(). Besides the advantage of avoiding to create slots that then are unused, this is necessary preparation for later patches around tuple table slot abstraction. In particular separating the return descriptor and slot is a prerequisite to allow JITing of tuple deforming with knowledge of the underlying tuple format, and to avoid unnecessarily creating JITed tuple deforming for virtual slots. This commit removes a redundant argument from ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL(). While this commit touches a lot of the relevant lines anyway, it'd normally still not worthwhile to cause breakage, except that aforementioned later commits will touch *all* ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() callers anyway (but fits worse thematically). Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
2018-11-10 02:19:39 +01:00
if (node->ss.ps.ps_ResultTupleSlot)
ExecClearTuple(node->ss.ps.ps_ResultTupleSlot);
ExecClearTuple(node->ss.ss_ScanTupleSlot);
/*
* close heap scan
*/
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
if (node->ss.ss_currentScanDesc)
heap_endscan(node->ss.ss_currentScanDesc);
}
/* ----------------------------------------------------------------
* ExecReScanSampleScan
*
* Rescans the relation.
*
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
*/
void
ExecReScanSampleScan(SampleScanState *node)
{
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
/* Remember we need to do BeginSampleScan again (if we did it at all) */
node->begun = false;
ExecScanReScan(&node->ss);
}
/*
* Initialize the TABLESAMPLE method: evaluate params and call BeginSampleScan.
*/
static void
tablesample_init(SampleScanState *scanstate)
{
TsmRoutine *tsm = scanstate->tsmroutine;
ExprContext *econtext = scanstate->ss.ps.ps_ExprContext;
Datum *params;
Datum datum;
bool isnull;
uint32 seed;
bool allow_sync;
int i;
ListCell *arg;
params = (Datum *) palloc(list_length(scanstate->args) * sizeof(Datum));
i = 0;
foreach(arg, scanstate->args)
{
ExprState *argstate = (ExprState *) lfirst(arg);
params[i] = ExecEvalExprSwitchContext(argstate,
econtext,
&isnull);
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
if (isnull)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_TABLESAMPLE_ARGUMENT),
errmsg("TABLESAMPLE parameter cannot be null")));
i++;
}
if (scanstate->repeatable)
{
datum = ExecEvalExprSwitchContext(scanstate->repeatable,
econtext,
&isnull);
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
if (isnull)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_TABLESAMPLE_REPEAT),
errmsg("TABLESAMPLE REPEATABLE parameter cannot be null")));
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
/*
* The REPEATABLE parameter has been coerced to float8 by the parser.
* The reason for using float8 at the SQL level is that it will
* produce unsurprising results both for users used to databases that
* accept only integers in the REPEATABLE clause and for those who
* might expect that REPEATABLE works like setseed() (a float in the
* range from -1 to 1).
*
* We use hashfloat8() to convert the supplied value into a suitable
* seed. For regression-testing purposes, that has the convenient
* property that REPEATABLE(0) gives a machine-independent result.
*/
seed = DatumGetUInt32(DirectFunctionCall1(hashfloat8, datum));
}
else
{
/* Use the seed selected by ExecInitSampleScan */
seed = scanstate->seed;
}
/* Set default values for params that BeginSampleScan can adjust */
scanstate->use_bulkread = true;
scanstate->use_pagemode = true;
/* Let tablesample method do its thing */
tsm->BeginSampleScan(scanstate,
params,
list_length(scanstate->args),
seed);
/* We'll use syncscan if there's no NextSampleBlock function */
allow_sync = (tsm->NextSampleBlock == NULL);
/* Now we can create or reset the HeapScanDesc */
if (scanstate->ss.ss_currentScanDesc == NULL)
{
scanstate->ss.ss_currentScanDesc =
heap_beginscan_sampling(scanstate->ss.ss_currentRelation,
scanstate->ss.ps.state->es_snapshot,
0, NULL,
scanstate->use_bulkread,
allow_sync,
scanstate->use_pagemode);
}
else
{
heap_rescan_set_params(scanstate->ss.ss_currentScanDesc, NULL,
scanstate->use_bulkread,
allow_sync,
scanstate->use_pagemode);
}
pfree(params);
/* And we're initialized. */
scanstate->begun = true;
}
/*
* Get next tuple from TABLESAMPLE method.
*
* Note: an awful lot of this is copied-and-pasted from heapam.c. It would
* perhaps be better to refactor to share more code.
*/
static HeapTuple
tablesample_getnext(SampleScanState *scanstate)
{
TsmRoutine *tsm = scanstate->tsmroutine;
HeapScanDesc scan = scanstate->ss.ss_currentScanDesc;
HeapTuple tuple = &(scan->rs_ctup);
Snapshot snapshot = scan->rs_snapshot;
bool pagemode = scan->rs_pageatatime;
BlockNumber blockno;
Page page;
bool all_visible;
OffsetNumber maxoffset;
if (!scan->rs_inited)
{
/*
* return null immediately if relation is empty
*/
if (scan->rs_nblocks == 0)
{
Assert(!BufferIsValid(scan->rs_cbuf));
tuple->t_data = NULL;
return NULL;
}
if (tsm->NextSampleBlock)
{
blockno = tsm->NextSampleBlock(scanstate);
if (!BlockNumberIsValid(blockno))
{
tuple->t_data = NULL;
return NULL;
}
}
else
blockno = scan->rs_startblock;
Assert(blockno < scan->rs_nblocks);
heapgetpage(scan, blockno);
scan->rs_inited = true;
}
else
{
/* continue from previously returned page/tuple */
Phase 2 of pgindent updates. Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments following #endif to not obey the general rule. Commit e3860ffa4dd0dad0dd9eea4be9cc1412373a8c89 wasn't actually using the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after. Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else. That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
2017-06-21 21:18:54 +02:00
blockno = scan->rs_cblock; /* current page */
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
}
/*
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
* When not using pagemode, we must lock the buffer during tuple
* visibility checks.
*/
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
if (!pagemode)
LockBuffer(scan->rs_cbuf, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
page = (Page) BufferGetPage(scan->rs_cbuf);
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
all_visible = PageIsAllVisible(page) && !snapshot->takenDuringRecovery;
maxoffset = PageGetMaxOffsetNumber(page);
for (;;)
{
OffsetNumber tupoffset;
bool finished;
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
/* Ask the tablesample method which tuples to check on this page. */
tupoffset = tsm->NextSampleTuple(scanstate,
blockno,
maxoffset);
if (OffsetNumberIsValid(tupoffset))
{
ItemId itemid;
bool visible;
/* Skip invalid tuple pointers. */
itemid = PageGetItemId(page, tupoffset);
if (!ItemIdIsNormal(itemid))
continue;
tuple->t_data = (HeapTupleHeader) PageGetItem(page, itemid);
tuple->t_len = ItemIdGetLength(itemid);
ItemPointerSet(&(tuple->t_self), blockno, tupoffset);
if (all_visible)
visible = true;
else
visible = SampleTupleVisible(tuple, tupoffset, scan);
/* in pagemode, heapgetpage did this for us */
if (!pagemode)
CheckForSerializableConflictOut(visible, scan->rs_rd, tuple,
scan->rs_cbuf, snapshot);
if (visible)
{
/* Found visible tuple, return it. */
if (!pagemode)
LockBuffer(scan->rs_cbuf, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK);
break;
}
else
{
/* Try next tuple from same page. */
continue;
}
}
/*
* if we get here, it means we've exhausted the items on this page and
* it's time to move to the next.
*/
if (!pagemode)
LockBuffer(scan->rs_cbuf, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK);
if (tsm->NextSampleBlock)
{
blockno = tsm->NextSampleBlock(scanstate);
Assert(!scan->rs_syncscan);
finished = !BlockNumberIsValid(blockno);
}
else
{
/* Without NextSampleBlock, just do a plain forward seqscan. */
blockno++;
if (blockno >= scan->rs_nblocks)
blockno = 0;
/*
* Report our new scan position for synchronization purposes.
*
* Note: we do this before checking for end of scan so that the
* final state of the position hint is back at the start of the
* rel. That's not strictly necessary, but otherwise when you run
* the same query multiple times the starting position would shift
* a little bit backwards on every invocation, which is confusing.
* We don't guarantee any specific ordering in general, though.
*/
if (scan->rs_syncscan)
ss_report_location(scan->rs_rd, blockno);
finished = (blockno == scan->rs_startblock);
}
/*
* Reached end of scan?
*/
if (finished)
{
if (BufferIsValid(scan->rs_cbuf))
ReleaseBuffer(scan->rs_cbuf);
scan->rs_cbuf = InvalidBuffer;
scan->rs_cblock = InvalidBlockNumber;
tuple->t_data = NULL;
scan->rs_inited = false;
return NULL;
}
Assert(blockno < scan->rs_nblocks);
heapgetpage(scan, blockno);
/* Re-establish state for new page */
if (!pagemode)
LockBuffer(scan->rs_cbuf, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
page = (Page) BufferGetPage(scan->rs_cbuf);
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
all_visible = PageIsAllVisible(page) && !snapshot->takenDuringRecovery;
maxoffset = PageGetMaxOffsetNumber(page);
}
/* Count successfully-fetched tuples as heap fetches */
pgstat_count_heap_getnext(scan->rs_rd);
return &(scan->rs_ctup);
}
Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review. The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
2015-07-25 20:39:00 +02:00
/*
* Check visibility of the tuple.
*/
static bool
SampleTupleVisible(HeapTuple tuple, OffsetNumber tupoffset, HeapScanDesc scan)
{
if (scan->rs_pageatatime)
{
/*
* In pageatatime mode, heapgetpage() already did visibility checks,
* so just look at the info it left in rs_vistuples[].
*
* We use a binary search over the known-sorted array. Note: we could
* save some effort if we insisted that NextSampleTuple select tuples
* in increasing order, but it's not clear that there would be enough
* gain to justify the restriction.
*/
int start = 0,
end = scan->rs_ntuples - 1;
while (start <= end)
{
int mid = (start + end) / 2;
OffsetNumber curoffset = scan->rs_vistuples[mid];
if (tupoffset == curoffset)
return true;
else if (tupoffset < curoffset)
end = mid - 1;
else
start = mid + 1;
}
return false;
}
else
{
/* Otherwise, we have to check the tuple individually. */
return HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility(tuple,
scan->rs_snapshot,
scan->rs_cbuf);
}
}