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
The code building PartitionBoundInfo based on the constituent partition
data read from catalogs has been located in partcache.c, with a specific
set of routines dedicated to bound types, like sorting or bound data
creation. All this logic is moved to partbounds.c and relocates all the
bound-specific logistic into it, with partition_bounds_create() as
principal entry point.
Author: Amit Langote
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3f289da8-6d10-75fe-814a-635e8b191d43@lab.ntt.co.jp
Create an array estate->es_relations[] paralleling the es_range_table,
and store references to Relations (relcache entries) there, so that any
given RT entry is opened and closed just once per executor run. Scan
nodes typically still call ExecOpenScanRelation, but ExecCloseScanRelation
is no more; relation closing is now done centrally in ExecEndPlan.
This is slightly more complex than one would expect because of the
interactions with relcache references held in ResultRelInfo nodes.
The general convention is now that ResultRelInfo->ri_RelationDesc does
not represent a separate relcache reference and so does not need to be
explicitly closed; but there is an exception for ResultRelInfos in the
es_trig_target_relations list, which are manufactured by
ExecGetTriggerResultRel and have to be cleaned up by
ExecCleanUpTriggerState. (That much was true all along, but these
ResultRelInfos are now more different from others than they used to be.)
To allow the partition pruning logic to make use of es_relations[] rather
than having its own relcache references, adjust PartitionedRelPruneInfo
to store an RT index rather than a relation OID.
Amit Langote, reviewed by David Rowley and Jesper Pedersen,
some mods by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/468c85d9-540e-66a2-1dde-fec2b741e688@lab.ntt.co.jp
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
In the original code, we were storing the pg_inherits row for a
partitioned table too early: enough that we had a hack for relcache to
avoid falling flat on its face while reading such a partial entry. If
we finish the pg_class creation first and *then* store the pg_inherits
entry, we don't need that hack.
Also recognize that pg_class.relpartbound is not marked NOT NULL and
therefore it's entirely possible to read null values, so having only
Assert() protection isn't enough. Change those to if/elog tests
instead. This qualifies as a robustness fix, so backpatch to pg11.
In passing, remove one access that wasn't actually needed, and reword
one message to be like all the others that check for the same thing.
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180903213916.hh6wasnrdg6xv2ud@alvherre.pgsql
This Assert thought that a given rel couldn't be both leaf and
non-leaf, but it turns out that in some unusual plan trees
that's wrong, so remove it.
The lack of testing for cases like that is quite concerning ---
there is little reason for confidence that there aren't other
bugs in the area. But developing a stable test case seems
rather difficult, and in any case we don't need this Assert.
David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJGNTeOkdk=UVuMugmKL7M=owgt4nNr1wjxMg1F+mHsXyLCzFA@mail.gmail.com
Commit 1c2cb2744 added some code that tried to detect whether two
RelOptInfos were the "same" rel by pointer comparison; but it turns
out that inheritance_planner breaks that, through its shenanigans
with copying some relations forward into new subproblems. Compare
relid sets instead. Add a regression test case to exercise this
area.
Problem reported by Rushabh Lathia; diagnosis and fix by Amit Langote,
modified a bit by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGPqQf3anJGj65bqAQ9edDr8gF7qig6_avRgwMT9MsZ19COUPw@mail.gmail.com
The previous coding here supposed that if run-time partitioning applied to
a particular Append/MergeAppend plan, then all child plans of that node
must be members of a single partitioning hierarchy. This is totally wrong,
since an Append could be formed from a UNION ALL: we could have multiple
hierarchies sharing the same Append, or child plans that aren't part of any
hierarchy.
To fix, restructure the related plan-time and execution-time data
structures so that we can have a separate list or array for each
partitioning hierarchy. Also track subplans that are not part of any
hierarchy, and make sure they don't get pruned.
Per reports from Phil Florent and others. Back-patch to v11, since
the bug originated there.
David Rowley, with a lot of cosmetic adjustments by me; thanks also
to Amit Langote for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/HE1PR03MB17068BB27404C90B5B788BCABA7B0@HE1PR03MB1706.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
The original code was unable to prune partitions that could not possibly
contain NULL values, when the query specified less than all columns in a
multicolumn partition key. Reorder the if-tests so that it is, and add
more commentary and regression tests.
Reported-by: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Co-authored-by: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Co-authored-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRc7qjLUfXLVBBC_HAnx644sjTYM=qVoT3TJ840HPbsTXw@mail.gmail.com
We fail to handle polymorphic types properly when they are used as
partition keys: we were unnecessarily adding a RelabelType node on top,
which confuses code examining the nodes. In particular, this makes
predtest.c-based partition pruning not to work, and ruleutils.c to emit
expressions that are uglier than needed. Fix it by not adding RelabelType
when not needed.
In master/11 the new pruning code is separate so it doesn't suffer from
this problem, since we already fixed it (in essentially the same way) in
e5dcbb88a1, which also added a few tests; back-patch those tests to
pg10 also. But since UPDATE/DELETE still uses predtest.c in pg11, this
change improves partitioning for those cases too. Add tests for this.
The ruleutils.c behavior change is relevant in pg11/master too.
Co-authored-by: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Co-authored-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/54745d13-7ed4-54ac-97d8-ea1eec95ae25@lab.ntt.co.jp
Fix inconsistent decisions about NOMATCH vs UNSUPPORTED result codes.
If we're going to cater for partkeys that have the same expression and
different collations, surely we should also support partkeys with the
same expression and different opclasses.
Clean up shaky handling of commuted opclauses, eg checking the wrong
operator to see what its negator is. This wouldn't cause any actual
bugs given a sane opclass definition, but it doesn't seem helpful to
expend more code to be less correct.
Improve handling of null elements in ScalarArrayOp arrays: in the
"op ALL" case, we can conclude they result in an unsatisfiable clause.
Minor cosmetic changes and comment improvements.
The previous coding saved pointers into the partitioned table's relcache
entry, but then closed the relcache entry, causing those pointers to
nominally become dangling. Actual trouble would be seen in the field
only if a relcache flush occurred mid-query, but that's hardly out of
the question.
While we could fix this by copying all the data in question at query
start, it seems better to just hold the relcache entry open for the
whole query.
While at it, improve the handling of support-function lookups: do that
once per query not once per pruning test. There's still something to be
desired here, in that we fail to exploit the possibility of caching data
across queries in the fn_extra fields of the relcache's FmgrInfo structs,
which could happen if we just used those structs in-place rather than
copying them. However, combining that with the possibility of per-query
lookups of cross-type comparison functions seems to require changes in the
APIs of a lot of the pruning support functions, so it's too invasive to
consider as part of this patch. A win would ensue only for complex
partition key data types (e.g. arrays), so it may not be worth the
trouble.
David Rowley and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17850.1528755844@sss.pgh.pa.us
The previous coding just ignored pruning constraints that compare a
partition key to a null-valued expression. This is silly, since really
what we can do there is conclude that all partitions are rejected: the
pruning operator is known strict so the comparison must always fail.
This also fixes the logic to not ignore constisnull for a Const comparison
value. That's probably an unreachable case, since the planner would
normally have simplified away a strict operator with a constant-null input.
But this code has no business assuming that.
David Rowley, per a gripe from me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26279.1528670981@sss.pgh.pa.us
The initial coding of the run-time-pruning feature only coped with cases
where the partition key(s) are compared to Params. That is a bit silly;
we can allow it to work with any non-Var-containing stable expression, as
long as we take special care with expressions containing PARAM_EXEC Params.
The code is hardly any longer this way, and it's considerably clearer
(IMO at least). Per gripe from Pavel Stehule.
David Rowley, whacked around a bit by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRBjrufA3ocDm8o4LPGNye9Y+pm1b9kCwode4X04CULG3g@mail.gmail.com
match_clause_to_partition_key failed to consider COERCION_PATH_ARRAYCOERCE
cases in scalar-op-array expressions, so it was possible to crash the
server easily. To handle this case properly (ie. prune partitions) we
would need to run a bit of executor code during planning. Maybe it can
be improved, but for now let's just not crash. Add a test case that
used to trigger the crash.
Author: Michaël Paquier
match_clause_to_partition_key failed to indicate that operators that
don't have a commutator in a btree opclass are unsupported. It is
possible for this to cause a crash later if such an operator is used in
a scalar-op-array expression. Add a test case that used to the crash.
Author: Amit Langote
One caller of gen_partprune_steps_internal in
match_clause_to_partition_key was too optimistic about the former never
returning an empty step list. Rid it of its innocence. (Having fixed
the bug above, I no longer know how to exploit this, so no test case for
it, but it remained a bug.) Revise code flow a little bit, for
succintness.
Author: Álvaro Herrera
Reported-by: Marina Polyakova
Reviewed-by: Michaël Paquier
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ff8f9bfa485ff961d6bb43e54120485b@postgrespro.ru
There's no need to export this function, so don't. Michaël didn't
actually write the patch, but we list him as first author because with a
trivial one like this, intellectual authorship is as important (if not
more) as bit shovelling.
Author: Michaël Paquier, Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/c91299c4-199b-0f16-339b-a29d6d2a39ee@lab.ntt.co.jp
Instead of doing ExecInitExpr every time a Param needs to be evaluated
in run-time partition pruning, do it once during run-time pruning
set-up and cache the exprstate in PartitionPruneContext, saving a lot of
work.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f8-x+q-90QAPDu_okhQBV4DPEtPz8CJ=m0940GyT4DA4w@mail.gmail.com
Amit Langote reported that partition prune was unable to work with
arrays, enums, etc, which led him to research the appropriate way to
match query clauses to partition keys: instead of searching for an exact
match of the expression's type, it is better to rely on the fact that
the expression qual has already been resolved to a specific operator,
and that the partition key is linked to a specific operator family.
With that info, it's possible to figure out the strategy and comparison
function to use for the pruning clause in a manner that works reliably
for pseudo-types also.
Include new test cases that demonstrate pruning where pseudotypes are
involved.
Author: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2b02f1e9-9812-9c41-972d-517bdc0f815d@lab.ntt.co.jp
We were initializing a BMS to merely reference an existing one, which
would cause a double-free (and a crash) when the recursive algorithm
tried to intersect it with an empty one. Fix it by creating a copy at
initialization time.
Reported-by: sqlsmith (by way of Andreas Seltenreich)
Author: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87in923lyw.fsf@ansel.ydns.eu
Existing partition pruning is only able to work at plan time, for query
quals that appear in the parsed query. This is good but limiting, as
there can be parameters that appear later that can be usefully used to
further prune partitions.
This commit adds support for pruning subnodes of Append which cannot
possibly contain any matching tuples, during execution, by evaluating
Params to determine the minimum set of subnodes that can possibly match.
We support more than just simple Params in WHERE clauses. Support
additionally includes:
1. Parameterized Nested Loop Joins: The parameter from the outer side of the
join can be used to determine the minimum set of inner side partitions to
scan.
2. Initplans: Once an initplan has been executed we can then determine which
partitions match the value from the initplan.
Partition pruning is performed in two ways. When Params external to the plan
are found to match the partition key we attempt to prune away unneeded Append
subplans during the initialization of the executor. This allows us to bypass
the initialization of non-matching subplans meaning they won't appear in the
EXPLAIN or EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
For parameters whose value is only known during the actual execution
then the pruning of these subplans must wait. Subplans which are
eliminated during this stage of pruning are still visible in the EXPLAIN
output. In order to determine if pruning has actually taken place, the
EXPLAIN ANALYZE must be viewed. If a certain Append subplan was never
executed due to the elimination of the partition then the execution
timing area will state "(never executed)". Whereas, if, for example in
the case of parameterized nested loops, the number of loops stated in
the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for certain subplans may appear lower than
others due to the subplan having been scanned fewer times. This is due
to the list of matching subnodes having to be evaluated whenever a
parameter which was found to match the partition key changes.
This commit required some additional infrastructure that permits the
building of a data structure which is able to perform the translation of
the matching partition IDs, as returned by get_matching_partitions, into
the list index of a subpaths list, as exist in node types such as
Append, MergeAppend and ModifyTable. This allows us to translate a list
of clauses into a Bitmapset of all the subpath indexes which must be
included to satisfy the clause list.
Author: David Rowley, based on an earlier effort by Beena Emerson
Reviewers: Amit Langote, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi,
Jesper Pedersen
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApE16ac-_VVZVvv0gePSgkg_BwYEV1NBqZFqDR2bBE0X0A@mail.gmail.com
Add a new module backend/partitioning/partprune.c, implementing a more
sophisticated algorithm for partition pruning. The new module uses each
partition's "boundinfo" for pruning instead of constraint exclusion,
based on an idea proposed by Robert Haas of a "pruning program": a list
of steps generated from the query quals which are run iteratively to
obtain a list of partitions that must be scanned in order to satisfy
those quals.
At present, this targets planner-time partition pruning, but there exist
further patches to apply partition pruning at execution time as well.
This commit also moves some definitions from include/catalog/partition.h
to a new file include/partitioning/partbounds.h, in an attempt to
rationalize partitioning related code.
Authors: Amit Langote, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar
Reviewers: Robert Haas, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Ashutosh Bapat, Jesper Pedersen.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/098b9c71-1915-1a2a-8d52-1a7a50ce79e8@lab.ntt.co.jp
Andres Freund
Michael Paquier
Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera
Thomas Munro