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.
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.
Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane