The general convention in the executor is to refer to child plans
and planstates via the outerPlan[State] and innerPlan[State]
macros, but a few places didn't do it like that. For consistency
and readability, convert all the stragglers to use the macros.
(See also commit 40f42d2a3, which did some similar cleanup a few
years ago, but missed these cases.)
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-vYhh1xsa_veah4PUed2Xq=Ed_YH3=Mqt5A3Y=EgfCEg@mail.gmail.com
Also "make reformat-dat-files".
The only change worthy of note is that pgindent messed up the formatting
of launcher.c's struct LogicalRepWorkerId, which led me to notice that
that struct wasn't used at all anymore, so I just took it out.
This representation saves 8 bytes per tuple compared to HeapTuple, and
avoids the need to allocate, copy and free on the receiving side.
Gather can emit the returned MinimalTuple directly, but GatherMerge now
needs to make an explicit copy because it buffers multiple tuples at a
time. That should be no worse than before.
Reviewed-by: Soumyadeep Chakraborty <soumyadeep2007@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKG%2B8T_ggoUTAE-U%3DA%2BOcPc4%3DB0nPPHcSfffuQhvXXjML6w%40mail.gmail.com
Create a new header optimizer/optimizer.h, which exposes just the
planner functions that can be used "at arm's length", without need
to access Paths or the other planner-internal data structures defined
in nodes/relation.h. This is intended to provide the whole planner
API seen by most of the rest of the system; although FDWs still need
to use additional stuff, and more thought is also needed about just
what selfuncs.c should rely on.
The main point of doing this now is to limit the amount of new
#include baggage that will be needed by "planner support functions",
which I expect to introduce later, and which will be in relevant
datatype modules rather than anywhere near the planner.
This commit just moves relevant declarations into optimizer.h from
other header files (a couple of which go away because everything
got moved), and adjusts #include lists to match. There's further
cleanup that could be done if we want to decide that some stuff
being exposed by optimizer.h doesn't belong in the planner at all,
but I'll leave that for another day.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11460.1548706639@sss.pgh.pa.us
Users of the WaitEventSet and WaitLatch() APIs can now choose between
asking for WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH and then handling it explicitly, or asking
for WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH to trigger immediate exit on postmaster death.
This reduces code duplication, since almost all callers want the latter.
Repair all code that was previously ignoring postmaster death completely,
or requesting the event but ignoring it, or requesting the event but then
doing an unconditional PostmasterIsAlive() call every time through its
event loop (which is an expensive syscall on platforms for which we don't
have USE_POSTMASTER_DEATH_SIGNAL support).
Assert that callers of WaitLatchXXX() under the postmaster remember to
ask for either WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH or WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH, to prevent
future bugs.
The only process that doesn't handle postmaster death is syslogger. It
waits until all backends holding the write end of the syslog pipe
(including the postmaster) have closed it by exiting, to be sure to
capture any parting messages. By using the WaitEventSet API directly
it avoids the new assertion, and as a by-product it may be slightly
more efficient on platforms that have epoll().
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-by: Kyotaro Horiguchi, Heikki Linnakangas, Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D1TCviRykkUb69ppWLr_V697rzd1j3eZsRMmbXvETfqbQ%40mail.gmail.com,
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2LqHzizbe7muD7-2yHUbTOoF7Q+qkSD5Q41kuhttRTwA@mail.gmail.com
The assumption made in 1a0586de36 was wrong, as evidenced by
buildfarm failure on locust, which runs with
force_parallel_mode=regress. The tuples accessed in either nodes are
in the outer slot, and we can't trivially rely on the slot type being
known because the leader might execute the subsidiary node directly,
or via the tuple queue on a worker. In the latter case the tuple will
always be a heaptuple slot, but in the former, it'll be whatever the
subsidiary node returns.
Upcoming work intends to allow pluggable ways to introduce new ways of
storing table data. Accessing those table access methods from the
executor requires TupleTableSlots to be carry tuples in the native
format of such storage methods; otherwise there'll be a significant
conversion overhead.
Different access methods will require different data to store tuples
efficiently (just like virtual, minimal, heap already require fields
in TupleTableSlot). To allow that without requiring additional pointer
indirections, we want to have different structs (embedding
TupleTableSlot) for different types of slots. Thus different types of
slots are needed, which requires adapting creators of slots.
The slot that most efficiently can represent a type of tuple in an
executor node will often depend on the type of slot a child node
uses. Therefore we need to track the type of slot is returned by
nodes, so parent slots can create slots based on that.
Relatedly, JIT compilation of tuple deforming needs to know which type
of slot a certain expression refers to, so it can create an
appropriate deforming function for the type of tuple in the slot.
But not all nodes will only return one type of slot, e.g. an append
node will potentially return different types of slots for each of its
subplans.
Therefore add function that allows to query the type of a node's
result slot, and whether it'll always be the same type (whether it's
fixed). This can be queried using ExecGetResultSlotOps().
The scan, result, inner, outer type of slots are automatically
inferred from ExecInitScanTupleSlot(), ExecInitResultSlot(),
left/right subtrees respectively. If that's not correct for a node,
that can be overwritten using new fields in PlanState.
This commit does not introduce the actually abstracted implementation
of different kind of TupleTableSlots, that will be left for a followup
commit. The different types of slots introduced will, for now, still
use the same backing implementation.
While this already partially invalidates the big comment in
tuptable.h, it seems to make more sense to update it later, when the
different TupleTableSlot implementations actually exist.
Author: Ashutosh Bapat and Andres Freund, with changes by Amit Khandekar
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
In a lot of nodes the return slot is not required. That can either be
because the node doesn't do any projection (say an Append node), or
because the node does perform projections but the projection is
optimized away because the projection would yield an identical row.
Slots aren't that small, especially for wide rows, so it's worthwhile
to avoid creating them. It's not possible to just skip creating the
slot - it's currently used to determine the tuple descriptor returned
by ExecGetResultType(). So separate the determination of the result
type from the slot creation. The work previously done internally
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() can now also be done separately with
ExecInitResultTypeTL() and ExecInitResultSlot(). That way nodes that
aren't guaranteed to need a result slot, can use
ExecInitResultTypeTL() to determine the result type of the node, and
ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo() (via
ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo()) determines that a result slot
is needed, it is created with ExecInitResultSlot().
Besides the advantage of avoiding to create slots that then are
unused, this is necessary preparation for later patches around tuple
table slot abstraction. In particular separating the return descriptor
and slot is a prerequisite to allow JITing of tuple deforming with
knowledge of the underlying tuple format, and to avoid unnecessarily
creating JITed tuple deforming for virtual slots.
This commit removes a redundant argument from
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL(). While this commit touches a lot of the
relevant lines anyway, it'd normally still not worthwhile to cause
breakage, except that aforementioned later commits will touch *all*
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() callers anyway (but fits worse
thematically).
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
Upcoming changes introduce further types of tuple table slots, in
preparation of making table storage pluggable. New storage methods
will have different representation of tuples, therefore the slot
accessor should refer explicitly to heap tuples.
Instead of just renaming the functions, split it into one function
that accepts heap tuples not residing in buffers, and one accepting
ones in buffers. Previously one function was used for both, but that
was a bit awkward already, and splitting will allow us to represent
slot types for tuples in buffers and normal memory separately.
This is split out from the patch introducing abstract slots, as this
largely consists out of mechanical changes.
Author: Ashutosh Bapat
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180220224318.gw4oe5jadhpmcdnm@alap3.anarazel.de
The buffer usage stats is accounted only for the execution phase of the
node. For Gather and Gather Merge nodes, such stats are accumulated at
the time of shutdown of workers which is done after execution of node due
to which we missed to account them for such nodes. Fix it by treating
nodes as running while we shut down them.
We can also miss accounting for a Limit node when Gather or Gather Merge
is beneath it, because it can finish the execution before shutting down
such nodes. So we allow a Limit node to shut down the resources before it
completes the execution.
In the passing fix the gather node code to allow workers to shut down as
soon as we find that all the tuples from the workers have been retrieved.
The original code use to do that, but is accidently removed by commit
01edb5c7fc.
Reported-by: Adrien Nayrat
Author: Amit Kapila and Robert Haas
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas and Andres Freund
Backpatch-through: 9.6 where this code was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/86137f17-1dfb-42f9-7421-82fd786b04a1@anayrat.info
The reason for doing so is that it will allow expression evaluation to
optimize based on the underlying tupledesc. In particular it will
allow to JIT tuple deforming together with the expression itself.
For that expression initialization needs to be moved after the
relevant slots are initialized - mostly unproblematic, except in the
case of nodeWorktablescan.c.
After doing so there's no need for ExecAssignResultType() and
ExecAssignResultTypeFromTL() anymore, as all former callers have been
converted to create a slot with a fixed descriptor.
When creating a slot with a fixed descriptor, tts_values/isnull can be
allocated together with the main slot, reducing allocation overhead
and increasing cache density a bit.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171206093717.vqdxe5icqttpxs3p@alap3.anarazel.de
Once this function has been called, we know that all workers have
started and attached to their error queues -- so if any of them
subsequently exit uncleanly, we'll be sure to throw an ERROR promptly.
Otherwise, users of the ParallelContext machinery must be careful not
to wait forever for a worker that has failed to start. Parallel query
manages to work without needing this for reasons explained in new
comments added by this patch, but it's a useful primitive for other
parallel operations, such as the pending patch to make creating a
btree index run in parallel.
Amit Kapila, revised by me. Additional review by Peter Geoghegan.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+e2MzyouF5bg=OtyhDSX+=Ao=3htN=T-r_6s3gCtKFiw@mail.gmail.com
es_query_dsa turns out to be broken by design, because it supposes
that there is only one DSA for the whole query, whereas there is
actually one per Gather (Merge) node. For now, work around that
problem by setting and clearing the pointer around the sections of
code that might need it. It's probably a better idea to get rid of
es_query_dsa altogether in favor of having each node keep track
individually of which DSA is relevant, but that seems like more than
we would want to back-patch.
Thomas Munro, reviewed and tested by Andreas Seltenreich, Amit
Kapila, and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=1U6as=brnVvMNixEV2tpi8NuyQoTmO8Qef0-VV+=7MDA@mail.gmail.com
Before commit 6b65a7fe62, tqueue.c could
perform tuple remapping and thus leak memory, which is why commit
af33039317 made TupleQueueReaderNext
run in a short-lived context. Now, however, tqueue.c has been reduced
to a shadow of its former self, and there shouldn't be any chance of
leaks any more. Accordingly, remove some tuple copying and memory
context manipulation to speed up processing.
Patch by me, reviewed by Amit Kapila. Some testing by Rafia Sabih.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1LSDydwrNjmYSNkfJ3ZivGSWH9SVswh6QpNzsMdj_oOQA@mail.gmail.com
It's most often the case that the target list for the Gather (Merge)
node matches the target list supplied by the underlying plan node;
when this is so, we can avoid the overhead of projecting.
This depends on commit f455e1125e for
proper functioning.
Idea by Andres Freund. Patch by me. Review by Amit Kapila.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZ0ZL=cesZFq8c9NnfK6bqy-wwUd3_74iYGodYrSoQ7Fw@mail.gmail.com
Specifically, pass the outer plan's PlanState instead of our own
PlanState. At present, ExecContextForcesOids doesn't actually care
which PlanState we pass; it just looks through to the underlying
EState to find the result relation or top-level eflags. However, in
the future it might care. If that happens, and if our goal is to get
a tuple descriptor that matches that of the outer plan, then I think
what we care about is whether the outer plan's context forces OIDs,
rather than whether our own context forces OIDs, just as we use the
outer node's target list rather than our own.
Patch by me, reviewed by Amit Kapila.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZ0ZL=cesZFq8c9NnfK6bqy-wwUd3_74iYGodYrSoQ7Fw@mail.gmail.com
If a PARAM_EXEC parameter is used below a Gather (Merge) but the InitPlan
that computes it is attached to or above the Gather (Merge), force the
value to be computed before starting parallelism and pass it down to all
workers. This allows us to use parallelism in cases where it previously
would have had to be rejected as unsafe. We do - in this case - lose the
optimization that the value is only computed if it's actually used. An
alternative strategy would be to have the first worker that needs the value
compute it, but one downside of that approach is that we'd then need to
select a parallel-safe path to compute the parameter value; it couldn't for
example contain a Gather (Merge) node. At some point in the future, we
might want to consider both approaches.
Independent of that consideration, there is a great deal more work that
could be done to make more kinds of PARAM_EXEC parameters parallel-safe.
This infrastructure could be used to allow a Gather (Merge) on the inner
side of a nested loop (although that's not a very appealing plan) and
cases where the InitPlan is attached below the Gather (Merge) could be
addressed as well using various techniques. But this is a good start.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and revised by me. Reviewing and testing from
Kuntal Ghosh, Haribabu Kommi, and Tushar Ahuja.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1LV0Y1AUV4cUCdC+sYOx0Z0-8NAJ2Pd9=UKsbQ5Sr7+JQ@mail.gmail.com
If we try to run a parallel plan in serial mode because, for example,
it's going to be scanned via a cursor, but for some reason we're
already in parallel mode (for example because an outer query is
running in parallel), we'd incorrectly try to launch workers.
Fix by adding a flag to the EState, so that we can be certain that
ExecutePlan() and ExecGather()/ExecGatherMerge() will have the same
idea about whether we are executing serially or in parallel.
Report and fix by Amit Kapila with help from Kuntal Ghosh. A few
tweaks by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+_BuZrmVCeua5Eqnm4Co9DAXdM5HPAOE2J19ePbR912Q@mail.gmail.com
Move the responsibility for creating/destroying TupleQueueReaders into
execParallel.c, to avoid duplicative coding in nodeGather.c and
nodeGatherMerge.c. Also, instead of having DestroyTupleQueueReader do
shm_mq_detach, do it in the caller (which is now only ExecParallelFinish).
This means execParallel.c does both the attaching and detaching of the
tuple-queue-reader shm_mqs, which seems less weird than the previous
arrangement.
These changes also eliminate a vestigial memory leak (of the pei->tqueue
array). It's now demonstrable that rescans of Gather or GatherMerge don't
leak memory.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8670.1504192177@sss.pgh.pa.us
Comment the fields of GatherMergeState, and organize them a bit more
sensibly. Comment GMReaderTupleBuffer more usefully too. Improve
assorted other comments that were obsolete or just not very good English.
Get rid of the use of a GMReaderTupleBuffer for the leader process;
that was confusing, since only the "done" field was used, and that
in a way redundant with need_to_scan_locally.
In gather_merge_init, avoid calling load_tuple_array for
already-known-exhausted workers. I'm not sure if there's a live bug there,
but the case is unlikely to be well tested due to timing considerations.
Remove some useless code, such as duplicating the tts_isempty test done by
TupIsNull.
Remove useless initialization of ps.qual, replacing that with an assertion
that we have no qual to check. (If we did, the code would fail to check
it.)
Avoid applying heap_copytuple to a null tuple. While that fails to crash,
it's confusing and it makes the code less legible not more so IMO.
Propagate a couple of these changes into nodeGather.c, as well.
Back-patch to v10, partly because of the possibility that the
gather_merge_init change is fixing a live bug, but mostly to keep
the branches in sync to ease future bug fixes.
Previously, the parallel executor logic did reinitialization of shared
state within the ExecReScan code for parallel-aware scan nodes. This is
problematic, because it means that the ExecReScan call has to occur
synchronously (ie, during the parent Gather node's ReScan call). That is
swimming very much against the tide so far as the ExecReScan machinery is
concerned; the fact that it works at all today depends on a lot of fragile
assumptions, such as that no plan node between Gather and a parallel-aware
scan node is parameterized. Another objection is that because ExecReScan
might be called in workers as well as the leader, hacky extra tests are
needed in some places to prevent unwanted shared-state resets.
Hence, let's separate this code into two functions, a ReInitializeDSM
call and the ReScan call proper. ReInitializeDSM is called only in
the leader and is guaranteed to run before we start new workers.
ReScan is returned to its traditional function of resetting only local
state, which means that ExecReScan's usual habits of delaying or
eliminating child rescan calls are safe again.
As with the preceding commit 7df2c1f8d, it doesn't seem to be necessary
to make these changes in 9.6, which is a good thing because the FDW and
CustomScan APIs are impacted.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
The ExecReScan machinery contains various optimizations for postponing
or skipping rescans of plan subtrees; for example a HashAgg node may
conclude that it can re-use the table it built before, instead of
re-reading its input subtree. But that is wrong if the input contains
a parallel-aware table scan node, since the portion of the table scanned
by the leader process is likely to vary from one rescan to the next.
This explains the timing-dependent buildfarm failures we saw after
commit a2b70c89c.
The established mechanism for showing that a plan node's output is
potentially variable is to mark it as depending on some runtime Param.
Hence, to fix this, invent a dummy Param (one that has a PARAM_EXEC
parameter number, but carries no actual value) associated with each Gather
or GatherMerge node, mark parallel-aware nodes below that node as dependent
on that Param, and arrange for ExecReScanGather[Merge] to flag that Param
as changed whenever the Gather[Merge] node is rescanned.
This solution breaks an undocumented assumption made by the parallel
executor logic, namely that all rescans of nodes below a Gather[Merge]
will happen synchronously during the ReScan of the top node itself.
But that's fundamentally contrary to the design of the ExecReScan code,
and so was doomed to fail someday anyway (even if you want to argue
that the bug being fixed here wasn't a failure of that assumption).
A follow-on patch will address that issue. In the meantime, the worst
that's expected to happen is that given very bad timing luck, the leader
might have to do all the work during a rescan, because workers think
they have nothing to do, if they are able to start up before the eventual
ReScan of the leader's parallel-aware table scan node has reset the
shared scan state.
Although this problem exists in 9.6, there does not seem to be any way
for it to manifest there. Without GatherMerge, it seems that a plan tree
that has a rescan-short-circuiting node below Gather will always also
have one above it that will short-circuit in the same cases, preventing
the Gather from being rescanned. Hence we won't take the risk of
back-patching this change into 9.6. But v10 needs it.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
If we only need, say, 10 tuples in total, then we certainly don't need
more than 10 tuples from any single process. Pushing down the limit
lets workers exit early when possible. For Gather Merge, there is
an additional benefit: a Sort immediately below the Gather Merge can
be done as a bounded sort if there is an applicable limit.
Robert Haas and Tom Lane
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYa3QKKrLj5rX7UvGqhH73G1Li4B-EKxrmASaca2tFu9Q@mail.gmail.com
This allows us to add stack-depth checks the first time an executor
node is called, and skip that overhead on following
calls. Additionally it yields a nice speedup.
While it'd probably have been a good idea to have that check all
along, it has become more important after the new expression
evaluation framework in b8d7f053c5 - there's no stack depth
check in common paths anymore now. We previously relied on
ExecEvalExpr() being executed somewhere.
We should move towards that model for further routines, but as this is
required for v10, it seems better to only do the necessary (which
already is quite large).
Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane
Reported-By: Julien Rouhaud
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.ushttps://postgr.es/m/b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com
In a followup commit ExecProcNode(), and especially the large switch
it contains, will largely be replaced by a function pointer directly
to the correct node. The node functions will then get invoked by a
thin inline function wrapper. To avoid having to include miscadmin.h
in headers - CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() - move the interrupt checks into
the individual executor routines.
While looking through all executor nodes, I noticed a number of
arguably missing interrupt checks, add these too.
Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with
non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation.
Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation.
This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes
future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier.
The speed gains primarily come from:
- non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead
- simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without
function calls
- sharing some state between different sub-expressions
- reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying
out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of
nearly all of the previously used linked lists
- more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding
constant re-checks at evaluation time
Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as
demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later
release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split
between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be
handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the
generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can
easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation.
The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.:
- basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup
overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared
statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where
initialization overhead is measurable.
- optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential
work has already been made.
- optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have
been made here too.
The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some
backward-incompatible changes:
- Function permission checks are now done during expression
initialization, whereas previously they were done during
execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that
previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a
different array type previously didn't perform checks.
- The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once
during expression initialization, previously it was re-built
every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this
doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches
ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior
around might still change.
Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane,
changes by Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
Coverity complained quite properly that commit ea15e1867 had introduced
unreachable code into ExecGather(); to wit, it was no longer possible to
iterate the final for-loop more or less than once. So remove the for().
In passing, clean up a couple of comments, and make better use of a local
variable.
Since 69f4b9c plain expression evaluation (and thus normal projection)
can't return sets of tuples anymore. Thus remove code dealing with
that possibility.
This will require adjustments in external code using
ExecEvalExpr()/ExecProject() - that should neither be hard nor very
common.
Author: Andres Freund and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160822214023.aaxz5l4igypowyri@alap3.anarazel.de
The previously code worked OK as long as a Gather node was never
rescanned, or if it was rescanned, as long as it got at least as
many workers on rescan as it had originally. But if the number
of workers ever decreased on a rescan, then it could crash.
Andreas Seltenreich
WaitLatch, WaitLatchOrSocket, and WaitEventSetWait now taken an
additional wait_event_info parameter; legal values are defined in
pgstat.h. This makes it possible to uniquely identify every point in
the core code where we are waiting for a latch; extensions can pass
WAIT_EXTENSION.
Because latches were the major wait primitive not previously covered
by this patch, it is now possible to see information in
pg_stat_activity on a large number of important wait events not
previously addressed, such as ClientRead, ClientWrite, and SyncRep.
Unfortunately, many of the wait events added by this patch will fail
to appear in pg_stat_activity because they're only used in background
processes which don't currently appear in pg_stat_activity. We should
fix this either by creating a separate view for such information, or
else by deciding to include them in pg_stat_activity after all.
Michael Paquier and Robert Haas, reviewed by Alexander Korotkov and
Thomas Munro.
This coding pattern creates a race condition, because if an interesting
interrupt happens after we've checked InterruptPending but before we reset
our latch, the latch-setting done by the signal handler would get lost,
and then we might block at WaitLatch in the next iteration without ever
noticing the interrupt condition. You can put the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS
before WaitLatch or after ResetLatch, but not between them.
Aside from fixing the bugs, add some explanatory comments to latch.h
to perhaps forestall the next person from making the same mistake.
In HEAD, also replace gather_readnext's direct call of
HandleParallelMessages with CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS. It does not seem clean
or useful for this one caller to bypass ProcessInterrupts and go straight
to HandleParallelMessages; not least because that fails to consider the
InterruptPending flag, resulting in useless work both here
(if InterruptPending isn't set) and in the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS call
(if it is).
This thinko seems to have been introduced in the initial coding of
storage/ipc/shm_mq.c (commit ec9037df2), and then blindly copied into all
the subsequent parallel-query support logic. Back-patch relevant hunks
to 9.4 to extirpate the error everywhere.
Discussion: <1661.1469996911@sss.pgh.pa.us>
TupleQueueReaderNext() leaks like a sieve if it has to do any tuple
disassembly/reconstruction. While we could try to clean up its allocations
piecemeal, it seems like a better idea just to insist that it should be run
in a short-lived memory context, so that any transient space goes away
automatically. I chose to have nodeGather.c switch into its existing
per-tuple context before the call, rather than inventing a separate
context inside tqueue.c.
This is sufficient to stop all leakage in the simple case I exhibited
earlier today (see link below), but it does not deal with leaks induced
in more complex cases by tqueue.c's insistence on using TopMemoryContext
for data that it's not actually trying hard to keep track of. That issue
is intertwined with another major source of inefficiency, namely failure
to cache lookup results across calls, so it seems best to deal with it
separately.
In passing, improve some comments, and modify gather_readnext's method for
deciding when it's visited all the readers so that it's more obviously
correct. (I'm not actually convinced that the previous code *is*
correct in the case of a reader deletion; it certainly seems fragile.)
Discussion: <32763.1469821037@sss.pgh.pa.us>
The previous display was sort of confusing, because it didn't
distinguish between the number of workers that we planned to launch
and the number that actually got launched. This has already confused
several people, so display both numbers and label them clearly.
Julien Rouhaud, reviewed by me.
Originally, we didn't have nworkers_launched, so code that used parallel
contexts had to be preprared for the possibility that not all of the
workers requested actually got launched. But now we can count on knowing
the number of workers that were successfully launched, which can shave
off a few cycles and simplify some code slightly.
Amit Kapila, reviewed by Haribabu Kommi, per a suggestion from Peter
Geoghegan.
Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane
Thomas Munro
Andres Freund
Amit Kapila
Robert Haas