This allows MERGE commands to include WHEN NOT MATCHED BY SOURCE
actions, which operate on rows that exist in the target relation, but
not in the data source. These actions can execute UPDATE, DELETE, or
DO NOTHING sub-commands.
This is in contrast to already-supported WHEN NOT MATCHED actions,
which operate on rows that exist in the data source, but not in the
target relation. To make this distinction clearer, such actions may
now be written as WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET.
Writing WHEN NOT MATCHED without specifying BY SOURCE or BY TARGET is
equivalent to writing WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Alvaro Herrera, Ted Yu and Vik Fearing.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWqnKGc57Y_JanUBHQXNKcXd7r=0R4NEZUVwP+syRkWbA@mail.gmail.com
Historically we've printed SubPlan expression nodes as "(SubPlan N)",
which is pretty uninformative. Trying to reproduce the original SQL
for the subquery is still as impractical as before, and would be
mighty verbose as well. However, we can still do better than that.
Displaying the "testexpr" when present, and adding a keyword to
indicate the SubLinkType, goes a long way toward showing what's
really going on.
In addition, this patch gets rid of EXPLAIN's use of "$n" to represent
subplan and initplan output Params. Instead we now print "(SubPlan
N).colX" or "(InitPlan N).colX" to represent the X'th output column
of that subplan. This eliminates confusion with the use of "$n" to
represent PARAM_EXTERN Params, and it's useful for the first part of
this change because it eliminates needing some other indication of
which subplan is referenced by a SubPlan that has a testexpr.
In passing, this adds simple regression test coverage of the
ROWCOMPARE_SUBLINK code paths, which were entirely unburdened
by testing before.
Tom Lane and Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Aleksander Alekseev.
Thanks to Chantal Keller for raising the question of whether
this area couldn't be improved.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2838538.1705692747@sss.pgh.pa.us
This allows a RETURNING clause to be appended to a MERGE query, to
return values based on each row inserted, updated, or deleted. As with
plain INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE commands, the returned values are
based on the new contents of the target table for INSERT and UPDATE
actions, and on its old contents for DELETE actions. Values from the
source relation may also be returned.
As with INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, the output of MERGE ... RETURNING may be
used as the source relation for other operations such as WITH queries
and COPY commands.
Additionally, a special function merge_action() is provided, which
returns 'INSERT', 'UPDATE', or 'DELETE', depending on the action
executed for each row. The merge_action() function can be used
anywhere in the RETURNING list, including in arbitrary expressions and
subqueries, but it is an error to use it anywhere outside of a MERGE
query's RETURNING list.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Isaac Morland, Vik Fearing, Alvaro Herrera,
Gurjeet Singh, Jian He, Jeff Davis, Merlin Moncure, Peter Eisentraut,
and Wolfgang Walther.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWePEGQR5LBn-vD6SfeLZafzEm2Qy_L_Oky2=qw2w3Pzg@mail.gmail.com
Given a subplan in a MERGE query, EXPLAIN would sometimes fail to
properly display expressions involving Params referencing variables in
other parts of the plan tree.
This would affect subplans outside the topmost join plan node, for
which expansion of Params would go via the top-level ModifyTable plan
node. The problem was that "inner_tlist" for the ModifyTable node's
deparse_namespace was set to the join node's targetlist, but
"inner_plan" was set to the ModifyTable node itself, rather than the
join node, leading to incorrect results when descending to the
referenced variable.
Fix and backpatch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWAv-sZuH%2BwG5xJ-%2BGt7qGNGX8wUQd3XYydMFDKgRB9nw%40mail.gmail.com
This allows the target relation of MERGE to be an auto-updatable or
trigger-updatable view, and includes support for WITH CHECK OPTION,
security barrier views, and security invoker views.
A trigger-updatable view must have INSTEAD OF triggers for every type
of action (INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE) mentioned in the MERGE command.
An auto-updatable view must not have any INSTEAD OF triggers. Mixing
auto-update and trigger-update actions (i.e., having a partial set of
INSTEAD OF triggers) is not supported.
Rule-updatable views are also not supported, since there is no
rewriter support for non-SELECT rules with MERGE operations.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Jian He and Alvaro Herrera.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCVcB1g0nmxuEc-A+gGB0HnfcGQNGYH7gS=7rq0u0zOBXA@mail.gmail.com
Verify that a user running MERGE with a DO NOTHING clause has
privileges to read the table, even if no columns are referenced. Such
privileges were already required if the ON clause or any of the WHEN
conditions referenced any column at all, so there's no functional change
in practice.
This change fixes an assertion failure in the case where no column is
referenced by the command and the WHEN clauses are all DO NOTHING.
Backpatch to 15, where MERGE was introduced.
Reported-by: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4d65a385-7efa-4436-a825-0869f89d9d92@postgrespro.ru
Fix a bug during MERGE if a cross-partition update is attempted on a
partitioned table with a BEFORE DELETE ROW trigger that returns NULL,
to prevent the update. This would cause an error to be thrown, or an
assert failure in an assert-enabled build.
This was an oversight in 9321c79c86, which failed to properly
distinguish a DELETE prevented by a trigger from one prevented by a
concurrent update. Fix by having ExecDelete() return the TM_Result
status to ExecCrossPartitionUpdate(), so that it can distinguish the
two cases, and make ExecCrossPartitionUpdate() return the TM_Result
status to ExecUpdateAct(), so that it can return the correct status
from a concurrent update.
In addition, ensure that the command tag is correctly updated by
having ExecMergeMatched() pass canSetTag to ExecUpdateAct(), rather
than passing false, so that it updates the command tag if it does a
cross-partition update, making this code path in ExecMergeMatched()
consistent with ExecUpdate().
Per bug #18238 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE
was introduced.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Richard Guo and Jian He.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18238-2f2bdc7f720180b9%40postgresql.org
Under some circumstances, concurrent MERGE operations could lead to
inconsistent results, that varied according the plan chosen. This was
caused by a lack of rowmarks on the source relation, which meant that
EvalPlanQual rechecking was not guaranteed to return the same source
tuples when re-running the join query.
Fix by ensuring that preprocess_rowmarks() sets up PlanRowMarks for
all non-target relations used in MERGE, in the same way that it does
for UPDATE and DELETE.
Per bug #18103. Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18103-c4386baab8e355e3%40postgresql.org
MERGE planning could fail with "variable not found in subplan target
list" if the target table is partitioned and all its partitions are
excluded at plan time, or in the case where it has no partitions but
used to have some. This happened because distribute_row_identity_vars
thought it didn't need to make the target table's reltarget list
fully valid; but if we generate a join plan then that is required
because the dummy Result node's tlist will be made from the reltarget.
The same logic appears in distribute_row_identity_vars in v14,
but AFAICS the problem is unreachable in that branch for lack of
MERGE. In other updating statements, the target table is always
inner-joined to any other tables, so if the target is known dummy
then the whole plan reduces to dummy, so no join nodes are created.
So I'll refrain from back-patching this code change to v14 for now.
Per report from Alvaro Herrera.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230328112248.6as34mlx5sr4kltg@alvherre.pgsql
preprocess_targetlist thought PHVs couldn't appear here.
It was mistaken, as per report from Önder Kalacı.
Surveying other pull_var_clause calls, I noted no similar errors,
but I did notice that qual_is_pushdown_safe's assertion about
!contain_window_function was pointless, because the following
pull_var_clause call would complain about them anyway. In HEAD
only, remove the redundant Assert and improve the commentary.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CACawEhUuum-gC_2S3sXLTcsk7bUSPSHOD+g1ZpfKaDK-KKPPWA@mail.gmail.com
This ensures that the row count in the command tag for a MERGE is
correctly computed in the case where UPDATEs or DELETEs are skipped
due to a BEFORE ROW trigger returning NULL (the INSERT case was
already handled correctly by ExecMergeNotMatched() calling
ExecInsert()).
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCU8XEmR0JWKDtyb7iZ%3DqCffxS9uyJt0iOZ4TV4RT%2Bow1w%40mail.gmail.com
In ExecInitPartitionInfo(), the Assert when building the WITH CHECK
OPTION list for the new partition assumed that the command would be an
INSERT or UPDATE, but it can also be a MERGE. This can be triggered by
a MERGE into a partitioned table with RLS checks to enforce.
Fix, and back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWWFtQmW67F3XTyMU5Am10Oxa_b8oe0x%2BNu5Mo%2BCdRErg%40mail.gmail.com
This ensures that the row count in the command tag for a MERGE is
correctly computed. Previously, if MERGE updated a partitioned table,
the row count would be incorrect if any row was moved to a different
partition, since such updates were counted twice.
Back-patch to v15, where MERGE was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWRMG7XX2QEsVL1LswmNo2d_YG8tKTLkpD3=Lp644S7rg@mail.gmail.com
This was not something that required consideration before MERGE
was invented; but MERGE builds a join tree that left-joins to the
result relation, meaning that remove_useless_joins will consider
removing it. That should generally be stopped by the query's use
of output variables from the result relation. However, if the
result relation is inherited (e.g. a partitioned table) then
we don't add any row identity variables to the query until
expand_inherited_rtentry, which happens after join removal.
This was exposed as of commit 3c569049b, which made it possible
to deduce that a partitioned table could contain at most one row
matching a join key, enabling removal of the not-yet-expanded
result relation. Ooops.
To fix, let's just teach join_is_removable that the query result
rel is never removable. It's a cheap enough test in any case,
and it'll save some cycles that we'd otherwise expend in proving
that it's not removable, even in the cases we got right.
Back-patch to v15 where MERGE was added. Although I think the
case cannot be reached in v15, this seems like cheap insurance.
Per investigation of a report from Alexander Lakhin.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/36bee393-b351-16ac-93b2-d46d83637e45@gmail.com
Commit 7103ebb7aa added support for MERGE, which included support for
inheritance hierarchies, but didn't document the fact that ONLY could
be specified before the source and/or target tables to exclude tables
inheriting from the tables specified.
Update merge.sgml to mention this, and while at it, add some
regression tests to cover it.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Nathan Bossart.
Backpatch to 15, where MERGE was added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCU0XM-bJCvpJuVRU3UYNRqEBS6g4-zH%3Dj9Ye0caX8F6uQ%40mail.gmail.com
Examine ParseNamespaceItem flags to detect whether a column name
is unreferenceable for lack of LATERAL, or could be referenced if
a qualified name were used, and give better hints for such cases.
Also, don't phrase the message to imply that there's only one
matching column when there is really more than one.
Many of the regression test output changes are not very interesting,
but just reflect reclassifying the "There is a column ... but it
cannot be referenced from this part of the query" messages as DETAIL
rather than HINT. They are details per our style guide, in the sense
of being factual rather than offering advice; and this change provides
room to offer actual HINTs about what to do.
While here, adjust the fuzzy-name-matching code to be a shade less
impenetrable. It was overloading the meanings of FuzzyAttrMatchState
fields way too much IMO, so splitting them into multiple fields seems
to make it clearer. It's not like we need to shave bytes in that
struct.
Per discussion of bug #17233 from Alexander Korolev.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17233-afb9d806aaa64b17@postgresql.org
This reverts commit db0d67db24 and
several follow-on fixes. The idea of making a cost-based choice
of the order of the sorting columns is not fundamentally unsound,
but it requires cost information and data statistics that we don't
really have. For example, relying on procost to distinguish the
relative costs of different sort comparators is pretty pointless
so long as most such comparator functions are labeled with cost 1.0.
Moreover, estimating the number of comparisons done by Quicksort
requires more than just an estimate of the number of distinct values
in the input: you also need some idea of the sizes of the larger
groups, if you want an estimate that's good to better than a factor of
three or so. That's data that's often unknown or not very reliable.
Worse, to arrive at estimates of the number of calls made to the
lower-order-column comparison functions, the code needs to make
estimates of the numbers of distinct values of multiple columns,
which are necessarily even less trustworthy than per-column stats.
Even if all the inputs are perfectly reliable, the cost algorithm
as-implemented cannot offer useful information about how to order
sorting columns beyond the point at which the average group size
is estimated to drop to 1.
Close inspection of the code added by db0d67db2 shows that there
are also multiple small bugs. These could have been fixed, but
there's not much point if we don't trust the estimates to be
accurate in-principle.
Finally, the changes in cost_sort's behavior made for very large
changes (often a factor of 2 or so) in the cost estimates for all
sorting operations, not only those for multi-column GROUP BY.
That naturally changes plan choices in many situations, and there's
precious little evidence to show that the changes are for the better.
Given the above doubts about whether the new estimates are really
trustworthy, it's hard to summon much confidence that these changes
are better on the average.
Since we're hard up against the release deadline for v15, let's
revert these changes for now. We can always try again later.
Note: in v15, I left T_PathKeyInfo in place in nodes.h even though
it's unreferenced. Removing it would be an ABI break, and it seems
a bit late in the release cycle for that.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/TYAPR01MB586665EB5FB2C3807E893941F5579@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
The grammar added for MERGE inadvertently made it accepted syntax in
places that were not prepared to deal with it -- namely COPY and inside
CTEs, but invoking these things with MERGE currently causes assertion
failures or weird misbehavior in non-assertion builds. Protect those
places by checking for it explicitly until somebody decides to implement
it.
Reported-by: Alexey Borzov <borz_off@cs.msu.su>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17579-82482cd7b267b862@postgresql.org
We can use a single line to print all tuple counts that MERGE processed,
for conciseness, and elide those that are zeroes. Non-text formats
report all numbers, as is typical.
Per comment from Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220511163350.GL19626@telsasoft.com
We were setting MERGE source subplan's targetlist by expanding the
individual attributes of the source relation completely, early in the
parse analysis phase. This failed to work when the condition of an
action included a whole-row reference, causing setrefs.c to error out
with
ERROR: variable not found in subplan target lists
because at that point there is nothing to resolve the whole-row
reference with. We can fix this by having preprocess_targetlist expand
the source targetlist for Vars required from the source rel by all
actions. Moreover, by using this expansion mechanism we can do away
with the targetlist expansion in transformMergeStmt, which is good
because then we no longer pull in columns that aren't needed for
anything.
Add a test case for the problem.
While at it, remove some redundant code in preprocess_targetlist():
MERGE was doing separately what is already being done for UPDATE/DELETE,
so we can just rely on the latter and remove the former. (The handling
of inherited rels was different for MERGE, but that was a no-longer-
necessary hack.)
Fix outdated, related comments for fix_join_expr also.
Author: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reported-by: Joe Wildish <joe@lateraljoin.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/fab3b90a-914d-46a9-beb0-df011ee39ee5@www.fastmail.com
MERGE performs actions that modify rows in the target table using a
source table or query. MERGE provides a single SQL statement that can
conditionally INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE rows -- a task that would otherwise
require multiple PL statements. For example,
MERGE INTO target AS t
USING source AS s
ON t.tid = s.sid
WHEN MATCHED AND t.balance > s.delta THEN
UPDATE SET balance = t.balance - s.delta
WHEN MATCHED THEN
DELETE
WHEN NOT MATCHED AND s.delta > 0 THEN
INSERT VALUES (s.sid, s.delta)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
DO NOTHING;
MERGE works with regular tables, partitioned tables and inheritance
hierarchies, including column and row security enforcement, as well as
support for row and statement triggers and transition tables therein.
MERGE is optimized for OLTP and is parameterizable, though also useful
for large scale ETL/ELT. MERGE is not intended to be used in preference
to existing single SQL commands for INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE since there
is some overhead. MERGE can be used from PL/pgSQL.
MERGE does not support targetting updatable views or foreign tables, and
RETURNING clauses are not allowed either. These limitations are likely
fixable with sufficient effort. Rewrite rules are also not supported,
but it's not clear that we'd want to support them.
Author: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Author: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> (earlier versions)
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> (earlier versions)
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> (earlier versions)
Reviewed-by: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkJdBuxj9PO=2QaO9-3h3xGbQPZ34kJH=HukRekwM-GZg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20201231134736.GA25392@alvherre.pgsql
This reverts commits d204ef6377,
83454e3c2b and a few more commits thereafter
(complete list at the end) related to MERGE feature.
While the feature was fully functional, with sufficient test coverage and
necessary documentation, it was felt that some parts of the executor and
parse-analyzer can use a different design and it wasn't possible to do that in
the available time. So it was decided to revert the patch for PG11 and retry
again in the future.
Thanks again to all reviewers and bug reporters.
List of commits reverted, in reverse chronological order:
f1464c5380 Improve parse representation for MERGE
ddb4158579 MERGE syntax diagram correction
530e69e59b Allow cpluspluscheck to pass by renaming variable
01b88b4df5 MERGE minor errata
3af7b2b0d4 MERGE fix variable warning in non-assert builds
a5d86181ec MERGE INSERT allows only one VALUES clause
4b2d44031f MERGE post-commit review
4923550c20 Tab completion for MERGE
aa3faa3c7a WITH support in MERGE
83454e3c2b New files for MERGE
d204ef6377 MERGE SQL Command following SQL:2016
Author: Pavan Deolasee
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
MERGE performs actions that modify rows in the target table
using a source table or query. MERGE provides a single SQL
statement that can conditionally INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE rows
a task that would other require multiple PL statements.
e.g.
MERGE INTO target AS t
USING source AS s
ON t.tid = s.sid
WHEN MATCHED AND t.balance > s.delta THEN
UPDATE SET balance = t.balance - s.delta
WHEN MATCHED THEN
DELETE
WHEN NOT MATCHED AND s.delta > 0 THEN
INSERT VALUES (s.sid, s.delta)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
DO NOTHING;
MERGE works with regular and partitioned tables, including
column and row security enforcement, as well as support for
row, statement and transition triggers.
MERGE is optimized for OLTP and is parameterizable, though
also useful for large scale ETL/ELT. MERGE is not intended
to be used in preference to existing single SQL commands
for INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE since there is some overhead.
MERGE can be used statically from PL/pgSQL.
MERGE does not yet support inheritance, write rules,
RETURNING clauses, updatable views or foreign tables.
MERGE follows SQL Standard per the most recent SQL:2016.
Includes full tests and documentation, including full
isolation tests to demonstrate the concurrent behavior.
This version written from scratch in 2017 by Simon Riggs,
using docs and tests originally written in 2009. Later work
from Pavan Deolasee has been both complex and deep, leaving
the lead author credit now in his hands.
Extensive discussion of concurrency from Peter Geoghegan,
with thanks for the time and effort contributed.
Various issues reported via sqlsmith by Andreas Seltenreich
Authors: Pavan Deolasee, Simon Riggs
Reviewers: Peter Geoghegan, Amit Langote, Tomas Vondra, Simon Riggs
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkJdBuxj9PO=2QaO9-3h3xGbQPZ34kJH=HukRekwM-GZg@mail.gmail.com
Dean Rasheed
Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera
Simon Riggs