rdelaage
/
postgresql
mirror of https://git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
postgresql/src/backend/executor/nodeLockRows.c

386 lines
9.9 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* nodeLockRows.c
* Routines to handle FOR UPDATE/FOR SHARE row locking
*
Update copyright for 2014 Update all files in head, and files COPYRIGHT and legal.sgml in all back branches.
2014-01-07 22:05:30 +01:00
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2014, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
*
*
* IDENTIFICATION
Remove cvs keywords from all files.
2010-09-20 22:08:53 +02:00
* src/backend/executor/nodeLockRows.c
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
/*
* INTERFACE ROUTINES
* ExecLockRows - fetch locked rows
* ExecInitLockRows - initialize node and subnodes..
* ExecEndLockRows - shutdown node and subnodes
*/
#include "postgres.h"
Split tuple struct defs from htup.h to htup_details.h This reduces unnecessary exposure of other headers through htup.h, which is very widely included by many files. I have chosen to move the function prototypes to the new file as well, because that means htup.h no longer needs to include tupdesc.h. In itself this doesn't have much effect in indirect inclusion of tupdesc.h throughout the tree, because it's also required by execnodes.h; but it's something to explore in the future, and it seemed best to do the htup.h change now while I'm busy with it.
2012-08-30 22:15:44 +02:00
#include "access/htup_details.h"
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
#include "access/xact.h"
#include "executor/executor.h"
#include "executor/nodeLockRows.h"
#include "storage/bufmgr.h"
Move Trigger and TriggerDesc structs out of rel.h into a new reltrigger.h This lets us stop including rel.h into execnodes.h, which is a widely used header.
2011-02-23 18:18:09 +01:00
#include "utils/rel.h"
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
#include "utils/tqual.h"
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
/* ----------------------------------------------------------------
* ExecLockRows
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
*/
TupleTableSlot * /* return: a tuple or NULL */
ExecLockRows(LockRowsState *node)
{
TupleTableSlot *slot;
EState *estate;
PlanState *outerPlan;
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
bool epq_started;
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
ListCell *lc;
/*
* get information from the node
*/
estate = node->ps.state;
outerPlan = outerPlanState(node);
/*
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
* Get next tuple from subplan, if any.
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
*/
lnext:
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
slot = ExecProcNode(outerPlan);
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
if (TupIsNull(slot))
return NULL;
/*
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
* Attempt to lock the source tuple(s). (Note we only have locking
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
* rowmarks in lr_arowMarks.)
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
*/
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
epq_started = false;
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
foreach(lc, node->lr_arowMarks)
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
{
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
ExecAuxRowMark *aerm = (ExecAuxRowMark *) lfirst(lc);
ExecRowMark *erm = aerm->rowmark;
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
Datum datum;
bool isNull;
HeapTupleData tuple;
Buffer buffer;
Throw error if expiring tuple is again updated or deleted. This prevents surprising behavior when a FOR EACH ROW trigger BEFORE UPDATE or BEFORE DELETE directly or indirectly updates or deletes the the old row. Prior to this patch the requested action on the row could be silently ignored while all triggered actions based on the occurence of the requested action could be committed. One example of how this could happen is if the BEFORE DELETE trigger for a "parent" row deleted "children" which had trigger functions to update summary or status data on the parent. This also prevents similar surprising problems if the query has a volatile function which updates a target row while it is already being updated. There are related issues present in FOR UPDATE cursors and READ COMMITTED queries which are not handled by this patch. These issues need further evalution to determine what change, if any, is needed. Where the new error messages are generated, in most cases the best fix will be to move code from the BEFORE trigger to an AFTER trigger. Where this is not feasible, the trigger can avoid the error by re-issuing the triggering statement and returning NULL. Documentation changes will be submitted in a separate patch. Kevin Grittner and Tom Lane with input from Florian Pflug and Robert Haas, based on problems encountered during conversion of Wisconsin Circuit Court trigger logic to plpgsql triggers.
2012-10-26 21:55:36 +02:00
HeapUpdateFailureData hufd;
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
LockTupleMode lockmode;
HTSU_Result test;
HeapTuple copyTuple;
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
/* clear any leftover test tuple for this rel */
if (node->lr_epqstate.estate != NULL)
EvalPlanQualSetTuple(&node->lr_epqstate, erm->rti, NULL);
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
/* if child rel, must check whether it produced this row */
if (erm->rti != erm->prti)
{
Oid tableoid;
datum = ExecGetJunkAttribute(slot,
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
aerm->toidAttNo,
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
&isNull);
/* shouldn't ever get a null result... */
if (isNull)
elog(ERROR, "tableoid is NULL");
tableoid = DatumGetObjectId(datum);
if (tableoid != RelationGetRelid(erm->relation))
{
/* this child is inactive right now */
ItemPointerSetInvalid(&(erm->curCtid));
continue;
}
}
/* fetch the tuple's ctid */
datum = ExecGetJunkAttribute(slot,
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
aerm->ctidAttNo,
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
&isNull);
/* shouldn't ever get a null result... */
if (isNull)
elog(ERROR, "ctid is NULL");
tuple.t_self = *((ItemPointer) DatumGetPointer(datum));
/* okay, try to lock the tuple */
Improve concurrency of foreign key locking This patch introduces two additional lock modes for tuples: "SELECT FOR KEY SHARE" and "SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE". These don't block each other, in contrast with already existing "SELECT FOR SHARE" and "SELECT FOR UPDATE". UPDATE commands that do not modify the values stored in the columns that are part of the key of the tuple now grab a SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE lock on the tuple, allowing them to proceed concurrently with tuple locks of the FOR KEY SHARE variety. Foreign key triggers now use FOR KEY SHARE instead of FOR SHARE; this means the concurrency improvement applies to them, which is the whole point of this patch. The added tuple lock semantics require some rejiggering of the multixact module, so that the locking level that each transaction is holding can be stored alongside its Xid. Also, multixacts now need to persist across server restarts and crashes, because they can now represent not only tuple locks, but also tuple updates. This means we need more careful tracking of lifetime of pg_multixact SLRU files; since they now persist longer, we require more infrastructure to figure out when they can be removed. pg_upgrade also needs to be careful to copy pg_multixact files over from the old server to the new, or at least part of multixact.c state, depending on the versions of the old and new servers. Tuple time qualification rules (HeapTupleSatisfies routines) need to be careful not to consider tuples with the "is multi" infomask bit set as being only locked; they might need to look up MultiXact values (i.e. possibly do pg_multixact I/O) to find out the Xid that updated a tuple, whereas they previously were assured to only use information readily available from the tuple header. This is considered acceptable, because the extra I/O would involve cases that would previously cause some commands to block waiting for concurrent transactions to finish. Another important change is the fact that locking tuples that have previously been updated causes the future versions to be marked as locked, too; this is essential for correctness of foreign key checks. This causes additional WAL-logging, also (there was previously a single WAL record for a locked tuple; now there are as many as updated copies of the tuple there exist.) With all this in place, contention related to tuples being checked by foreign key rules should be much reduced. As a bonus, the old behavior that a subtransaction grabbing a stronger tuple lock than the parent (sub)transaction held on a given tuple and later aborting caused the weaker lock to be lost, has been fixed. Many new spec files were added for isolation tester framework, to ensure overall behavior is sane. There's probably room for several more tests. There were several reviewers of this patch; in particular, Noah Misch and Andres Freund spent considerable time in it. Original idea for the patch came from Simon Riggs, after a problem report by Joel Jacobson. Most code is from me, with contributions from Marti Raudsepp, Alexander Shulgin, Noah Misch and Andres Freund. This patch was discussed in several pgsql-hackers threads; the most important start at the following message-ids: AANLkTimo9XVcEzfiBR-ut3KVNDkjm2Vxh+t8kAmWjPuv@mail.gmail.com 1290721684-sup-3951@alvh.no-ip.org 1294953201-sup-2099@alvh.no-ip.org 1320343602-sup-2290@alvh.no-ip.org 1339690386-sup-8927@alvh.no-ip.org 4FE5FF020200002500048A3D@gw.wicourts.gov 4FEAB90A0200002500048B7D@gw.wicourts.gov
2013-01-23 16:04:59 +01:00
switch (erm->markType)
{
case ROW_MARK_EXCLUSIVE:
lockmode = LockTupleExclusive;
break;
case ROW_MARK_NOKEYEXCLUSIVE:
lockmode = LockTupleNoKeyExclusive;
break;
case ROW_MARK_SHARE:
lockmode = LockTupleShare;
break;
case ROW_MARK_KEYSHARE:
lockmode = LockTupleKeyShare;
break;
default:
elog(ERROR, "unsupported rowmark type");
pgindent run for release 9.3 This is the first run of the Perl-based pgindent script. Also update pgindent instructions.
2013-05-29 22:58:43 +02:00
lockmode = LockTupleNoKeyExclusive; /* keep compiler quiet */
Improve concurrency of foreign key locking This patch introduces two additional lock modes for tuples: "SELECT FOR KEY SHARE" and "SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE". These don't block each other, in contrast with already existing "SELECT FOR SHARE" and "SELECT FOR UPDATE". UPDATE commands that do not modify the values stored in the columns that are part of the key of the tuple now grab a SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE lock on the tuple, allowing them to proceed concurrently with tuple locks of the FOR KEY SHARE variety. Foreign key triggers now use FOR KEY SHARE instead of FOR SHARE; this means the concurrency improvement applies to them, which is the whole point of this patch. The added tuple lock semantics require some rejiggering of the multixact module, so that the locking level that each transaction is holding can be stored alongside its Xid. Also, multixacts now need to persist across server restarts and crashes, because they can now represent not only tuple locks, but also tuple updates. This means we need more careful tracking of lifetime of pg_multixact SLRU files; since they now persist longer, we require more infrastructure to figure out when they can be removed. pg_upgrade also needs to be careful to copy pg_multixact files over from the old server to the new, or at least part of multixact.c state, depending on the versions of the old and new servers. Tuple time qualification rules (HeapTupleSatisfies routines) need to be careful not to consider tuples with the "is multi" infomask bit set as being only locked; they might need to look up MultiXact values (i.e. possibly do pg_multixact I/O) to find out the Xid that updated a tuple, whereas they previously were assured to only use information readily available from the tuple header. This is considered acceptable, because the extra I/O would involve cases that would previously cause some commands to block waiting for concurrent transactions to finish. Another important change is the fact that locking tuples that have previously been updated causes the future versions to be marked as locked, too; this is essential for correctness of foreign key checks. This causes additional WAL-logging, also (there was previously a single WAL record for a locked tuple; now there are as many as updated copies of the tuple there exist.) With all this in place, contention related to tuples being checked by foreign key rules should be much reduced. As a bonus, the old behavior that a subtransaction grabbing a stronger tuple lock than the parent (sub)transaction held on a given tuple and later aborting caused the weaker lock to be lost, has been fixed. Many new spec files were added for isolation tester framework, to ensure overall behavior is sane. There's probably room for several more tests. There were several reviewers of this patch; in particular, Noah Misch and Andres Freund spent considerable time in it. Original idea for the patch came from Simon Riggs, after a problem report by Joel Jacobson. Most code is from me, with contributions from Marti Raudsepp, Alexander Shulgin, Noah Misch and Andres Freund. This patch was discussed in several pgsql-hackers threads; the most important start at the following message-ids: AANLkTimo9XVcEzfiBR-ut3KVNDkjm2Vxh+t8kAmWjPuv@mail.gmail.com 1290721684-sup-3951@alvh.no-ip.org 1294953201-sup-2099@alvh.no-ip.org 1320343602-sup-2290@alvh.no-ip.org 1339690386-sup-8927@alvh.no-ip.org 4FE5FF020200002500048A3D@gw.wicourts.gov 4FEAB90A0200002500048B7D@gw.wicourts.gov
2013-01-23 16:04:59 +01:00
break;
}
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
Throw error if expiring tuple is again updated or deleted. This prevents surprising behavior when a FOR EACH ROW trigger BEFORE UPDATE or BEFORE DELETE directly or indirectly updates or deletes the the old row. Prior to this patch the requested action on the row could be silently ignored while all triggered actions based on the occurence of the requested action could be committed. One example of how this could happen is if the BEFORE DELETE trigger for a "parent" row deleted "children" which had trigger functions to update summary or status data on the parent. This also prevents similar surprising problems if the query has a volatile function which updates a target row while it is already being updated. There are related issues present in FOR UPDATE cursors and READ COMMITTED queries which are not handled by this patch. These issues need further evalution to determine what change, if any, is needed. Where the new error messages are generated, in most cases the best fix will be to move code from the BEFORE trigger to an AFTER trigger. Where this is not feasible, the trigger can avoid the error by re-issuing the triggering statement and returning NULL. Documentation changes will be submitted in a separate patch. Kevin Grittner and Tom Lane with input from Florian Pflug and Robert Haas, based on problems encountered during conversion of Wisconsin Circuit Court trigger logic to plpgsql triggers.
2012-10-26 21:55:36 +02:00
test = heap_lock_tuple(erm->relation, &tuple,
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
estate->es_output_cid,
Improve concurrency of foreign key locking This patch introduces two additional lock modes for tuples: "SELECT FOR KEY SHARE" and "SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE". These don't block each other, in contrast with already existing "SELECT FOR SHARE" and "SELECT FOR UPDATE". UPDATE commands that do not modify the values stored in the columns that are part of the key of the tuple now grab a SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE lock on the tuple, allowing them to proceed concurrently with tuple locks of the FOR KEY SHARE variety. Foreign key triggers now use FOR KEY SHARE instead of FOR SHARE; this means the concurrency improvement applies to them, which is the whole point of this patch. The added tuple lock semantics require some rejiggering of the multixact module, so that the locking level that each transaction is holding can be stored alongside its Xid. Also, multixacts now need to persist across server restarts and crashes, because they can now represent not only tuple locks, but also tuple updates. This means we need more careful tracking of lifetime of pg_multixact SLRU files; since they now persist longer, we require more infrastructure to figure out when they can be removed. pg_upgrade also needs to be careful to copy pg_multixact files over from the old server to the new, or at least part of multixact.c state, depending on the versions of the old and new servers. Tuple time qualification rules (HeapTupleSatisfies routines) need to be careful not to consider tuples with the "is multi" infomask bit set as being only locked; they might need to look up MultiXact values (i.e. possibly do pg_multixact I/O) to find out the Xid that updated a tuple, whereas they previously were assured to only use information readily available from the tuple header. This is considered acceptable, because the extra I/O would involve cases that would previously cause some commands to block waiting for concurrent transactions to finish. Another important change is the fact that locking tuples that have previously been updated causes the future versions to be marked as locked, too; this is essential for correctness of foreign key checks. This causes additional WAL-logging, also (there was previously a single WAL record for a locked tuple; now there are as many as updated copies of the tuple there exist.) With all this in place, contention related to tuples being checked by foreign key rules should be much reduced. As a bonus, the old behavior that a subtransaction grabbing a stronger tuple lock than the parent (sub)transaction held on a given tuple and later aborting caused the weaker lock to be lost, has been fixed. Many new spec files were added for isolation tester framework, to ensure overall behavior is sane. There's probably room for several more tests. There were several reviewers of this patch; in particular, Noah Misch and Andres Freund spent considerable time in it. Original idea for the patch came from Simon Riggs, after a problem report by Joel Jacobson. Most code is from me, with contributions from Marti Raudsepp, Alexander Shulgin, Noah Misch and Andres Freund. This patch was discussed in several pgsql-hackers threads; the most important start at the following message-ids: AANLkTimo9XVcEzfiBR-ut3KVNDkjm2Vxh+t8kAmWjPuv@mail.gmail.com 1290721684-sup-3951@alvh.no-ip.org 1294953201-sup-2099@alvh.no-ip.org 1320343602-sup-2290@alvh.no-ip.org 1339690386-sup-8927@alvh.no-ip.org 4FE5FF020200002500048A3D@gw.wicourts.gov 4FEAB90A0200002500048B7D@gw.wicourts.gov
2013-01-23 16:04:59 +01:00
lockmode, erm->noWait, true,
Throw error if expiring tuple is again updated or deleted. This prevents surprising behavior when a FOR EACH ROW trigger BEFORE UPDATE or BEFORE DELETE directly or indirectly updates or deletes the the old row. Prior to this patch the requested action on the row could be silently ignored while all triggered actions based on the occurence of the requested action could be committed. One example of how this could happen is if the BEFORE DELETE trigger for a "parent" row deleted "children" which had trigger functions to update summary or status data on the parent. This also prevents similar surprising problems if the query has a volatile function which updates a target row while it is already being updated. There are related issues present in FOR UPDATE cursors and READ COMMITTED queries which are not handled by this patch. These issues need further evalution to determine what change, if any, is needed. Where the new error messages are generated, in most cases the best fix will be to move code from the BEFORE trigger to an AFTER trigger. Where this is not feasible, the trigger can avoid the error by re-issuing the triggering statement and returning NULL. Documentation changes will be submitted in a separate patch. Kevin Grittner and Tom Lane with input from Florian Pflug and Robert Haas, based on problems encountered during conversion of Wisconsin Circuit Court trigger logic to plpgsql triggers.
2012-10-26 21:55:36 +02:00
&buffer, &hufd);
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
ReleaseBuffer(buffer);
switch (test)
{
case HeapTupleSelfUpdated:
pgindent run for release 9.3 This is the first run of the Perl-based pgindent script. Also update pgindent instructions.
2013-05-29 22:58:43 +02:00
Throw error if expiring tuple is again updated or deleted. This prevents surprising behavior when a FOR EACH ROW trigger BEFORE UPDATE or BEFORE DELETE directly or indirectly updates or deletes the the old row. Prior to this patch the requested action on the row could be silently ignored while all triggered actions based on the occurence of the requested action could be committed. One example of how this could happen is if the BEFORE DELETE trigger for a "parent" row deleted "children" which had trigger functions to update summary or status data on the parent. This also prevents similar surprising problems if the query has a volatile function which updates a target row while it is already being updated. There are related issues present in FOR UPDATE cursors and READ COMMITTED queries which are not handled by this patch. These issues need further evalution to determine what change, if any, is needed. Where the new error messages are generated, in most cases the best fix will be to move code from the BEFORE trigger to an AFTER trigger. Where this is not feasible, the trigger can avoid the error by re-issuing the triggering statement and returning NULL. Documentation changes will be submitted in a separate patch. Kevin Grittner and Tom Lane with input from Florian Pflug and Robert Haas, based on problems encountered during conversion of Wisconsin Circuit Court trigger logic to plpgsql triggers.
2012-10-26 21:55:36 +02:00
/*
* The target tuple was already updated or deleted by the
* current command, or by a later command in the current
* transaction. We *must* ignore the tuple in the former
* case, so as to avoid the "Halloween problem" of repeated
* update attempts. In the latter case it might be sensible
* to fetch the updated tuple instead, but doing so would
* require changing heap_lock_tuple as well as heap_update and
* heap_delete to not complain about updating "invisible"
* tuples, which seems pretty scary. So for now, treat the
* tuple as deleted and do not process.
*/
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
goto lnext;
case HeapTupleMayBeUpdated:
/* got the lock successfully */
break;
case HeapTupleUpdated:
SERIALIZABLE transactions are actually implemented beneath the covers with transaction snapshots, i.e. a snapshot registered at the beginning of a transaction. Change variable naming and comments to reflect this reality in preparation for a future, truly serializable mode, e.g. Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI). For the moment transaction snapshots are still used to implement SERIALIZABLE, but hopefully not for too much longer. Patch by Kevin Grittner and Dan Ports with review and some minor wording changes by me.
2010-09-11 20:38:58 +02:00
if (IsolationUsesXactSnapshot())
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
errmsg("could not serialize access due to concurrent update")));
Throw error if expiring tuple is again updated or deleted. This prevents surprising behavior when a FOR EACH ROW trigger BEFORE UPDATE or BEFORE DELETE directly or indirectly updates or deletes the the old row. Prior to this patch the requested action on the row could be silently ignored while all triggered actions based on the occurence of the requested action could be committed. One example of how this could happen is if the BEFORE DELETE trigger for a "parent" row deleted "children" which had trigger functions to update summary or status data on the parent. This also prevents similar surprising problems if the query has a volatile function which updates a target row while it is already being updated. There are related issues present in FOR UPDATE cursors and READ COMMITTED queries which are not handled by this patch. These issues need further evalution to determine what change, if any, is needed. Where the new error messages are generated, in most cases the best fix will be to move code from the BEFORE trigger to an AFTER trigger. Where this is not feasible, the trigger can avoid the error by re-issuing the triggering statement and returning NULL. Documentation changes will be submitted in a separate patch. Kevin Grittner and Tom Lane with input from Florian Pflug and Robert Haas, based on problems encountered during conversion of Wisconsin Circuit Court trigger logic to plpgsql triggers.
2012-10-26 21:55:36 +02:00
if (ItemPointerEquals(&hufd.ctid, &tuple.t_self))
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
{
/* Tuple was deleted, so don't return it */
goto lnext;
}
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
/* updated, so fetch and lock the updated version */
copyTuple = EvalPlanQualFetch(estate, erm->relation, lockmode,
Throw error if expiring tuple is again updated or deleted. This prevents surprising behavior when a FOR EACH ROW trigger BEFORE UPDATE or BEFORE DELETE directly or indirectly updates or deletes the the old row. Prior to this patch the requested action on the row could be silently ignored while all triggered actions based on the occurence of the requested action could be committed. One example of how this could happen is if the BEFORE DELETE trigger for a "parent" row deleted "children" which had trigger functions to update summary or status data on the parent. This also prevents similar surprising problems if the query has a volatile function which updates a target row while it is already being updated. There are related issues present in FOR UPDATE cursors and READ COMMITTED queries which are not handled by this patch. These issues need further evalution to determine what change, if any, is needed. Where the new error messages are generated, in most cases the best fix will be to move code from the BEFORE trigger to an AFTER trigger. Where this is not feasible, the trigger can avoid the error by re-issuing the triggering statement and returning NULL. Documentation changes will be submitted in a separate patch. Kevin Grittner and Tom Lane with input from Florian Pflug and Robert Haas, based on problems encountered during conversion of Wisconsin Circuit Court trigger logic to plpgsql triggers.
2012-10-26 21:55:36 +02:00
&hufd.ctid, hufd.xmax);
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
if (copyTuple == NULL)
{
/* Tuple was deleted, so don't return it */
goto lnext;
}
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
/* remember the actually locked tuple's TID */
tuple.t_self = copyTuple->t_self;
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
/*
pgindent run for 9.0
2010-02-26 03:01:40 +01:00
* Need to run a recheck subquery. Initialize EPQ state if we
* didn't do so already.
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
*/
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
if (!epq_started)
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
{
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
EvalPlanQualBegin(&node->lr_epqstate, estate);
epq_started = true;
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
}
/* Store target tuple for relation's scan node */
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
EvalPlanQualSetTuple(&node->lr_epqstate, erm->rti, copyTuple);
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
/* Continue loop until we have all target tuples */
break;
default:
elog(ERROR, "unrecognized heap_lock_tuple status: %u",
test);
}
/* Remember locked tuple's TID for WHERE CURRENT OF */
erm->curCtid = tuple.t_self;
}
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
/*
* If we need to do EvalPlanQual testing, do so.
*/
if (epq_started)
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
{
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
/*
* First, fetch a copy of any rows that were successfully locked
pgindent run for 9.0
2010-02-26 03:01:40 +01:00
* without any update having occurred. (We do this in a separate pass
* so as to avoid overhead in the common case where there are no
* concurrent updates.)
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
*/
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
foreach(lc, node->lr_arowMarks)
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
{
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
ExecAuxRowMark *aerm = (ExecAuxRowMark *) lfirst(lc);
ExecRowMark *erm = aerm->rowmark;
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
HeapTupleData tuple;
Buffer buffer;
Fix oversight in new EvalPlanQual logic: the second loop over the ExecRowMark list in ExecLockRows() forgot to allow for the possibility that some of the rowmarks are for child tables that aren't relevant to the current row. Per report from Kenichiro Tanaka.
2010-07-28 19:21:56 +02:00
/* ignore non-active child tables */
if (!ItemPointerIsValid(&(erm->curCtid)))
{
Assert(erm->rti != erm->prti); /* check it's child table */
continue;
}
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
if (EvalPlanQualGetTuple(&node->lr_epqstate, erm->rti) != NULL)
continue; /* it was updated and fetched above */
/* okay, fetch the tuple */
tuple.t_self = erm->curCtid;
if (!heap_fetch(erm->relation, SnapshotAny, &tuple, &buffer,
false, NULL))
elog(ERROR, "failed to fetch tuple for EvalPlanQual recheck");
/* successful, copy and store tuple */
EvalPlanQualSetTuple(&node->lr_epqstate, erm->rti,
heap_copytuple(&tuple));
ReleaseBuffer(buffer);
}
pgindent run for 9.0
2010-02-26 03:01:40 +01:00
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
/*
pgindent run for 9.0
2010-02-26 03:01:40 +01:00
* Now fetch any non-locked source rows --- the EPQ logic knows how to
* do that.
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
*/
EvalPlanQualSetSlot(&node->lr_epqstate, slot);
EvalPlanQualFetchRowMarks(&node->lr_epqstate);
pgindent run for 9.0
2010-02-26 03:01:40 +01:00
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
/*
* And finally we can re-evaluate the tuple.
*/
slot = EvalPlanQualNext(&node->lr_epqstate);
if (TupIsNull(slot))
{
/* Updated tuple fails qual, so ignore it and go on */
goto lnext;
}
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
}
/* Got all locks, so return the current tuple */
return slot;
}
/* ----------------------------------------------------------------
* ExecInitLockRows
*
* This initializes the LockRows node state structures and
* the node's subplan.
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
*/
LockRowsState *
ExecInitLockRows(LockRows *node, EState *estate, int eflags)
{
LockRowsState *lrstate;
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
Plan *outerPlan = outerPlan(node);
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
List *epq_arowmarks;
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
ListCell *lc;
/* check for unsupported flags */
Assert(!(eflags & EXEC_FLAG_MARK));
/*
* create state structure
*/
lrstate = makeNode(LockRowsState);
lrstate->ps.plan = (Plan *) node;
lrstate->ps.state = estate;
/*
* Miscellaneous initialization
*
* LockRows nodes never call ExecQual or ExecProject.
*/
/*
* Tuple table initialization (XXX not actually used...)
*/
ExecInitResultTupleSlot(estate, &lrstate->ps);
/*
* then initialize outer plan
*/
outerPlanState(lrstate) = ExecInitNode(outerPlan, estate, eflags);
/*
pgindent run for 9.0
2010-02-26 03:01:40 +01:00
* LockRows nodes do no projections, so initialize projection info for
* this node appropriately
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
*/
ExecAssignResultTypeFromTL(&lrstate->ps);
lrstate->ps.ps_ProjInfo = NULL;
/*
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
* Locate the ExecRowMark(s) that this node is responsible for, and
pgindent run before PG 9.1 beta 1.
2011-04-10 17:42:00 +02:00
* construct ExecAuxRowMarks for them. (InitPlan should already have
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
* built the global list of ExecRowMarks.)
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
*/
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
lrstate->lr_arowMarks = NIL;
epq_arowmarks = NIL;
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
foreach(lc, node->rowMarks)
{
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
PlanRowMark *rc = (PlanRowMark *) lfirst(lc);
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
ExecRowMark *erm;
ExecAuxRowMark *aerm;
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
Assert(IsA(rc, PlanRowMark));
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
/* ignore "parent" rowmarks; they are irrelevant at runtime */
if (rc->isParent)
continue;
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
/* find ExecRowMark and build ExecAuxRowMark */
erm = ExecFindRowMark(estate, rc->rti);
aerm = ExecBuildAuxRowMark(erm, outerPlan->targetlist);
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
/*
pgindent run for 9.0
2010-02-26 03:01:40 +01:00
* Only locking rowmarks go into our own list. Non-locking marks are
* passed off to the EvalPlanQual machinery. This is because we don't
* want to bother fetching non-locked rows unless we actually have to
* do an EPQ recheck.
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
*/
if (RowMarkRequiresRowShareLock(erm->markType))
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
lrstate->lr_arowMarks = lappend(lrstate->lr_arowMarks, aerm);
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
else
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
epq_arowmarks = lappend(epq_arowmarks, aerm);
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
}
Fix PlanRowMark/ExecRowMark structures to handle inheritance correctly. In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE, each target table has its own subplan, because it might have a column set different from other targets. This means that the resjunk columns we add to support EvalPlanQual might be at different physical column numbers in each subplan. The EvalPlanQual rewrite I did for 9.0 failed to account for this, resulting in possible misbehavior or even crashes during concurrent updates to the same row, as seen in a recent report from Gordon Shannon. Revise the data structure so that we track resjunk column numbers separately for each subplan. I also chose to move responsibility for identifying the physical column numbers back to executor startup, instead of assuming that numbers derived during preprocess_targetlist would stay valid throughout subsequent massaging of the plan. That's a bit slower, so we might want to consider undoing it someday; but it would complicate the patch considerably and didn't seem justifiable in a bug fix that has to be back-patched to 9.0.
2011-01-13 02:47:02 +01:00
/* Now we have the info needed to set up EPQ state */
EvalPlanQualInit(&lrstate->lr_epqstate, estate,
outerPlan, epq_arowmarks, node->epqParam);
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
return lrstate;
}
/* ----------------------------------------------------------------
* ExecEndLockRows
*
* This shuts down the subplan and frees resources allocated
* to this node.
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
*/
void
ExecEndLockRows(LockRowsState *node)
{
Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 03:26:45 +01:00
EvalPlanQualEnd(&node->lr_epqstate);
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
ExecEndNode(outerPlanState(node));
}
void
Make NestLoop plan nodes pass outer-relation variables into their inner relation using the general PARAM_EXEC executor parameter mechanism, rather than the ad-hoc kluge of passing the outer tuple down through ExecReScan. The previous method was hard to understand and could never be extended to handle parameters coming from multiple join levels. This patch doesn't change the set of possible plans nor have any significant performance effect, but it's necessary infrastructure for future generalization of the concept of an inner indexscan plan. ExecReScan's second parameter is now unused, so it's removed.
2010-07-12 19:01:06 +02:00
ExecReScanLockRows(LockRowsState *node)
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
{
/*
* if chgParam of subnode is not null then plan will be re-scanned by
* first ExecProcNode.
*/
Make NestLoop plan nodes pass outer-relation variables into their inner relation using the general PARAM_EXEC executor parameter mechanism, rather than the ad-hoc kluge of passing the outer tuple down through ExecReScan. The previous method was hard to understand and could never be extended to handle parameters coming from multiple join levels. This patch doesn't change the set of possible plans nor have any significant performance effect, but it's necessary infrastructure for future generalization of the concept of an inner indexscan plan. ExecReScan's second parameter is now unused, so it's removed.
2010-07-12 19:01:06 +02:00
if (node->ps.lefttree->chgParam == NULL)
ExecReScan(node->ps.lefttree);
Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows. Like the recent change to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the plan tree. It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does. This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query. That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans that return multiple rows per test row, though. Since this patch is mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day. Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon patch.
2009-10-12 20:10:51 +02:00
}