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
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
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
Andres Freund
Michael Paquier
Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane