A PlaceHolderVar's expression might contain another, lower-level
PlaceHolderVar. If the outer PlaceHolderVar is used, the inner one
certainly will be also, and so we have to make sure that both of them get
into the placeholder_list with correct ph_may_need values during the
initial pre-scan of the query (before deconstruct_jointree starts).
We did this correctly for PlaceHolderVars appearing in the query quals,
but overlooked the issue for those appearing in the top-level targetlist;
with the result that nested placeholders referenced only in the targetlist
did not work correctly, as illustrated in bug #6154.
While at it, add some error checking to find_placeholder_info to ensure
that we don't try to create new placeholders after it's too late to do so;
they have to all be created before deconstruct_jointree starts.
Back-patch to 8.4 where the PlaceHolderVar mechanism was introduced.
The point of a PlaceHolderVar is to allow a non-strict expression to be
evaluated below an outer join, after which its value bubbles up like a Var
and can be forced to NULL when the outer join's semantics require that.
However, there was a serious design oversight in that, namely that we
didn't ensure that there was actually a correct place in the plan tree
to evaluate the placeholder :-(. It may be necessary to delay evaluation
of an outer join to ensure that a placeholder that should be evaluated
below the join can be evaluated there. Per recent bug report from Kirill
Simonov.
Back-patch to 8.4 where the PlaceHolderVar mechanism was introduced.
The previous coding would decide that join removal was unsafe upon finding
a PlaceHolderVar that needed to be evaluated at the inner rel and then used
above the join. However, this fails to cover the case of PlaceHolderVars
that refer to both the inner rel and some other rels. Per bug report from
Andrus.
In these cases a qual can get marked with the removable rel in its
required_relids, but this is just to schedule its evaluation correctly, not
because it really depends on the rel. We were assuming that, in effect,
we could throw away *all* quals so marked, which is nonsense. Tighten up
the logic to be a little more paranoid about which quals belong to the
outer join being considered for removal, and arrange for all quals that
don't belong to be updated so they will still get evaluated correctly.
Also fix another problem that happened to be exposed by this test case,
which was that make_join_rel() was failing to notice some cases where
a constant-false qual could be used to prove a join relation empty. If it's
a pushed-down constant false, then the relation is empty even if it's an
outer join, because the qual applies after the outer join expansion.
Per report from Nathan Grange. Back-patch into 9.0.
peculiar variant of UNION ALL, and so wouldn't likely get written directly
as-is, it's possible for it to arise as a result of simplification of
less-obviously-silly queries. In particular, now that we can do flattening
of subqueries that have constant outputs and are underneath an outer join,
it's possible for the case to result from simplification of queries of the
type exhibited in bug #5263. Back-patch to 8.4 to avoid a functionality
regression for this type of query.
that's generated for a whole-row Var referencing the subquery, when the
subquery is in the nullable side of an outer join. The previous coding
instead put PlaceHolderVars around the elements of the RowExpr. The effect
was that when the outer join made the subquery outputs go to null, the
whole-row Var produced ROW(NULL,NULL,...) rather than just NULL. There
are arguments afoot about whether those things ought to be semantically
indistinguishable, but for the moment they are not entirely so, and the
planner needs to take care that its machinations preserve the difference.
Per bug #5025.
Making this feasible required refactoring ResolveNew() to allow more caller
control over what is substituted for a Var. I chose to make ResolveNew()
a wrapper around a new general-purpose function replace_rte_variables().
I also fixed the ancient bogosity that ResolveNew might fail to set
a query's hasSubLinks field after inserting a SubLink in it. Although
all current callers make sure that happens anyway, we've had bugs of that
sort before, and it seemed like a good time to install a proper solution.
Back-patch to 8.4. The problem can be demonstrated clear back to 8.0,
but the fix would be too invasive in earlier branches; not to mention
that people may be depending on the subtly-incorrect behavior. The
8.4 series is new enough that fixing this probably won't cause complaints,
but it might in older branches. Also, 8.4 shows the incorrect behavior
in more cases than older branches do, because it is able to flatten
subqueries in more cases.
by unique-ifying the RHS and then inner-joining to some other relation,
that is not grounds for violating the RHS of some other outer join.
Noticed while regression-testing new GEQO code, which will blindly follow
any path that join_is_legal says is legal, and then complain later if that
leads to a dead end.
I'm not certain that this can result in any visible failure in 8.4: the
mistake may always be masked by the fact that subsequent attempts to join
the rest of the RHS of the other join will fail. But I'm not certain it
can't, either, and it's definitely not operating as intended. So back-patch.
The added regression test depends on the new no-failures-allowed logic
that I'm about to commit in GEQO, so no point back-patching that.
that the sanity checking I added to create_mergejoin_plan() in 8.3 was a
few bricks shy of a load: the mergeclauses could reference pathkeys in a
noncanonical order such as x,y,x, not only cases like x,x,y which is all
that the code had allowed for. The odd cases only turn up when using
redundant clauses in an outer join condition, which is why no one had
noticed before.
making pull_up_sublinks() construct a full-blown JoinExpr tree representation
of IN/EXISTS SubLinks that it is able to convert to semi or anti joins.
This makes pull_up_sublinks() a shade more complex, but the gain in semantic
clarity is worth it. I still have more to do in this area to address the
previously-discussed problems, but this commit in itself fixes at least one
bug in HEAD, as shown by added regression test case.
of any lower outer join, even if it also references the non-nullable side and
so could not get pushed below the outer join anyway. We need this in case
the clause is an OR clause: if it doesn't get marked outerjoin_delayed,
create_or_index_quals() could pull an indexable restriction for the nullable
side out of it, leading to wrong results as demonstrated by today's bug
report from toruvinn. (See added regression test case for an example.)
In principle this has been wrong for quite a while. In practice I don't
think any branch before 8.3 can really show the failure, because
create_or_index_quals() will only pull out indexable conditions, and before
8.3 those were always strict. So though we might have improperly generated
null-extended rows in the outer join, they'd get discarded from the result
anyway. The gating factor that makes the failure visible is that 8.3
considers "col IS NULL" to be indexable. Hence I'm not going to risk
back-patching further than 8.3.
of poorer planning in 8.3 than 8.2:
1. After pushing a constant across an outer join --- ie, given
"a LEFT JOIN b ON (a.x = b.y) WHERE a.x = 42", we can deduce that b.y is
sort of equal to 42, in the sense that we needn't fetch any b rows where
it isn't 42 --- loop to see if any additional deductions can be made.
Previous releases did that by recursing, but I had mistakenly thought that
this was no longer necessary given the EquivalenceClass machinery.
2. Allow pushing constants across outer join conditions even if the
condition is outerjoin_delayed due to a lower outer join. This is safe
as long as the condition is strict and we re-test it at the upper join.
3. Keep the outer-join clause even if we successfully push a constant
across it. This is *necessary* in the outerjoin_delayed case, but
even in the simple case, it seems better to do this to ensure that the
join search order heuristics will consider the join as reasonable to
make. Mark such a clause as having selectivity 1.0, though, since it's
not going to eliminate very many rows after application of the constant
condition.
4. Tweak have_relevant_eclass_joinclause to report that two relations
are joinable when they have vars that are equated to the same constant.
We won't actually generate any joinclause from such an EquivalenceClass,
but again it seems that in such a case it's a good idea to consider
the join as worth costing out.
5. Fix a bug in select_mergejoin_clauses that was exposed by these
changes: we have to reject candidate mergejoin clauses if either side was
equated to a constant, because we can't construct a canonical pathkey list
for such a clause. This is an implementation restriction that might be
worth fixing someday, but it doesn't seem critical to get it done for 8.3.
sets for outer joins, in the light of bug #3588 and additional thought and
experimentation. The original methodology was fatally flawed for nests of
more than two outer joins: it got the relationships between adjacent joins
right, but didn't always come to the right conclusions about whether a join
could be interchanged with one two or more levels below it. This was largely
caused by a mistaken idea that we should use the min_lefthand + min_righthand
sets of a sub-join as the minimum left or right input set of an upper join
when we conclude that the sub-join can't commute with the upper one. If
there's a still-lower join that the sub-join *can* commute with, this method
led us to think that that one could commute with the topmost join; which it
can't. Another problem (not directly connected to bug #3588) was that
make_outerjoininfo's processing-order-dependent method for enforcing outer
join identity #3 didn't work right: if we decided that join A could safely
commute with lower join B, we dropped all information about sub-joins under B
that join A could perhaps not safely commute with, because we removed B's
entire min_righthand from A's.
To fix, make an explicit computation of all inner join combinations that occur
below an outer join, and add to that the full syntactic relsets of any lower
outer joins that we determine it can't commute with. This method gives much
more direct enforcement of the outer join rearrangement identities, and it
turns out not to cost a lot of additional bookkeeping.
Thanks to Richard Harris for the bug report and test case.
clauses in which one side or the other references both sides of the join
cannot be removed as redundant, because that expression won't have been
constrained below the join. Per report from Sergey Burladyan.
CVS HEAD does not contain this bug due to EquivalenceClass rewrite, but it
seems wise to include the regression test for it anyway.
in cases where a sub-SELECT inserts a WHERE clause between two outer joins,
that clause may prevent us from re-ordering the two outer joins. The code
was considering only the joins' own ON-conditions in determining reordering
safety, which is not good enough. Add a "delay_upper_joins" flag to
OuterJoinInfo to flag that we have detected such a clause and higher-level
outer joins shouldn't be permitted to commute with this one. (This might
seem overly coarse, but given the current rules for OJ reordering, it's
sufficient AFAICT.)
The failure case is actually pretty narrow: it needs a WHERE clause within
the RHS of a left join that checks the RHS of a lower left join, but is not
strict for that RHS (else we'd have simplified the lower join to a plain
join). Even then no failure will be manifest unless the planner chooses to
rearrange the join order.
Per bug report from Adam Terrey.
considered when it is necessary to do so because of a join-order restriction
(that is, an outer-join or IN-subselect construct). The former coding was a
bit ad-hoc and inconsistent, and it missed some cases, as exposed by Mario
Weilguni's recent bug report. His specific problem was that an IN could be
turned into a "clauseless" join due to constant-propagation removing the IN's
joinclause, and if the IN's subselect involved more than one relation and
there was more than one such IN linking to the same upper relation, then the
only valid join orders involve "bushy" plans but we would fail to consider the
specific paths needed to get there. (See the example case added to the join
regression test.) On examining the code I wonder if there weren't some other
problem cases too; in particular it seems that GEQO was defending against a
different set of corner cases than the main planner was. There was also an
efficiency problem, in that when we did realize we needed a clauseless join
because of an IN, we'd consider clauseless joins against every other relation
whether this was sensible or not. It seems a better design is to use the
outer-join and in-clause lists as a backup heuristic, just as the rule of
joining only where there are joinclauses is a heuristic: we'll join two
relations if they have a usable joinclause *or* this might be necessary to
satisfy an outer-join or IN-clause join order restriction. I refactored the
code to have just one place considering this instead of three, and made sure
that it covered all the cases that any of them had been considering.
Backpatch as far as 8.1 (which has only the IN-clause form of the disease).
By rights 8.0 and 7.4 should have the bug too, but they accidentally fail
to fail, because the joininfo structure used in those releases preserves some
memory of there having once been a joinclause between the inner and outer
sides of an IN, and so it leads the code in the right direction anyway.
I'll be conservative and not touch them.
2005-05-13. When we find that a new inner tuple can't possibly match any
outer tuple (because it contains a NULL), we can't immediately skip the
tuple when we are in NEXTINNER state. Doing so can lead to emitting
multiple copies of the tuple in FillInner mode, because we may rescan the
tuple after returning to a previous marked tuple. Instead, proceed to
NEXTOUTER state the same as we used to do. After we've found that there's
no need to return to the marked position, we can go to SKIPINNER_ADVANCE
state instead of SKIP_TEST when the inner tuple is unmatchable; this
preserves the performance improvement. Per bug report from Bruce.
I also made a couple of cosmetic code rearrangements and added a regression
test for the problem.
not likely ever to be implemented seeing it's been removed from SQL2003.
This allows getting rid of the 'filter' version of yylex() that we had in
parser.c, which should save at least a few microseconds in parsing.
in UPDATE. We also now issue a NOTICE if a query has _any_ implicit
range table entries -- in the past, we would only warn about implicit
RTEs in SELECTs with at least one explicit RTE.
As a result of the warning change, 25 of the regression tests had to
be updated. I also took the opportunity to remove some bogus whitespace
differences between some of the float4 and float8 variants. I believe
I have correctly updated all the platform-specific variants, but let
me know if that's not the case.
Original patch for DELETE ... USING from Euler Taveira de Oliveira,
reworked by Neil Conway.
better make sure the sort order is totally specified; else we get burnt
by platform-specific behavior of qsort() with equal keys. Per buildfarm
results.
In particular, there was a mathematical tie between the two possible
nestloop-with-materialized-inner-scan plans for a join (ie, we computed
the same cost with either input on the inside), resulting in a roundoff
error driven choice, if the relations were both small enough to fit in
sort_mem. Add a small cost factor to ensure we prefer materializing the
smaller input. This changes several regression test plans, but with any
luck we will now have more stability across platforms.
subplan it starts with, as they may be needed at upper join levels.
See comments added to code for the non-obvious reason why. Per bug report
from Robert Creager.
constraints appearing in outer-join qualification clauses are restricted
as to when and where they can be pushed down. Add regression test
to catch future errors in this area.
lists to join RTEs, attach a list of Vars and COALESCE expressions that will
replace the join's alias variables during planning. This simplifies
flatten_join_alias_vars while still making it easy to fix up varno references
when transforming the query tree. Add regression test cases for interactions
of subqueries with outer joins.
now has an RTE of its own, and references to its outputs now are Vars
referencing the JOIN RTE, rather than CASE-expressions. This allows
reverse-listing in ruleutils.c to use the correct alias easily, rather
than painfully reverse-engineering the alias namespace as it used to do.
Also, nested FULL JOINs work correctly, because the result of the inner
joins are simple Vars that the planner can cope with. This fixes a bug
reported a couple times now, notably by Tatsuo on 18-Nov-01. The alias
Vars are expanded into COALESCE expressions where needed at the very end
of planning, rather than during parsing.
Also, beginnings of support for showing plan qualifier expressions in
EXPLAIN. There are probably still cases that need work.
initdb forced due to change of stored-rule representation.
Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut
Neil Conway
Bruce Momjian
Thomas G. Lockhart