This reverts commit 8355a011a0, which
turns out to have been a misguided effort. We can't really support
this in a partitioning hierarchy after all for exactly the reasons
stated in the documentation removed by that commit. It's still
possible to use ON CONFLICT .. DO NOTHING (or for that matter ON
CONFLICT .. DO UPDATE) on individual partitions if desired, but
but to allow this on a partitioned table implies that we have some
way of evaluating uniqueness across the whole partitioning
hierarchy, which is false.
Shinoda Noriyoshi noticed that the old code was crashing (which we
could fix, though not in a nice way) and Amit Langote realized
that this was indicative of a fundamental problem with the commit
being reverted here.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/ff3dc21d-7204-c09c-50ac-cf11a8c45c81@lab.ntt.co.jp
We really ought to make StdRdOptions and the other decoded forms of
reloptions self-identifying, but for the moment, assume that only plain
relations could possibly be user_catalog_tables. Fixes problem with bogus
"ON CONFLICT is not supported on table ... used as a catalog table" error
when target is a view with cascade option.
Discussion: <26681.1477940227@sss.pgh.pa.us>
A transaction that conflicts against itself, for example
INSERT INTO t(pk) VALUES (1),(1) ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING;
should behave the same regardless of isolation level. It certainly
shouldn't throw a serialization error, as retrying will not help.
We got this wrong due to the ON CONFLICT logic not considering the case,
as reported by Jason Dusek.
Core of this patch is by Peter Geoghegan (based on an earlier patch by
Thomas Munro), though I didn't take his proposed code refactoring for fear
that it might have unexpected side-effects. Test cases by Thomas Munro
and myself.
Report: <CAO3NbwOycQjt2Oqy2VW-eLTq2M5uGMyHnGm=RNga4mjqcYD7gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Related-Discussion: <57EE93C8.8080504@postgrespro.ru>
ExecInsertIndexTuples treated an exclusion constraint as subject to
noDupErr processing even when it was not listed in arbiterIndexes, and
would therefore not error out for a conflict in such a constraint, instead
returning it as an arbiter-index failure. That led to an infinite loop in
ExecInsert, since ExecCheckIndexConstraints ignored the index as-intended
and therefore didn't throw the expected error. To fix, make the exclusion
constraint code path use the same condition as the index_insert call does
to decide whether no-error-for-duplicates behavior is appropriate. While
at it, refactor a little bit to avoid unnecessary list_member_oid calls.
(That surely wouldn't save anything worth noticing, but I find the code
a bit clearer this way.)
Per bug report from Heikki Rauhala. Back-patch to 9.5 where ON CONFLICT
was introduced.
Report: <4C976D6B-76B4-434C-8052-D009F7B7AEDA@reaktor.fi>
subquery_planner() failed to apply expression preprocessing to the
arbiterElems and arbiterWhere fields of an OnConflictExpr. No doubt the
theory was that this wasn't necessary because we don't actually try to
execute those expressions; but that's wrong, because it results in failure
to match to index expressions or index predicates that are changed at all
by preprocessing. Per bug #14132 from Reynold Smith.
Also add pullup_replace_vars processing for onConflictWhere. Perhaps
it's impossible to have a subquery reference there, but I'm not exactly
convinced; and even if true today it's a failure waiting to happen.
Also add some comments to other places where one or another field of
OnConflictExpr is intentionally ignored, with explanation as to why it's
okay to do so.
Also, catalog/dependency.c failed to record any dependency on the named
constraint in ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT, allowing such a constraint to
be dropped while rules exist that depend on it, and allowing pg_dump to
dump such a rule before the constraint it refers to. The normal execution
path managed to error out reasonably for a dangling constraint reference,
but ruleutils.c dumped core; so in addition to fixing the omission, add
a protective check in ruleutils.c, since we can't retroactively add a
dependency in existing databases.
Back-patch to 9.5 where this code was introduced.
Report: <20160510190350.2608.48667@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Four related issues:
1) attnos/varnos/resnos for EXCLUDED were out of sync when a column
after one dropped in the underlying relation was referenced.
2) References to whole-row variables (i.e. EXCLUDED.*) lead to errors.
3) It was possible to reference system columns in the EXCLUDED pseudo
relations, even though they would not have valid contents.
4) References to EXCLUDED were rewritten by the RLS machinery, as
EXCLUDED was treated as if it were the underlying relation.
To fix the first two issues, generate the excluded targetlist with
dropped columns in mind and add an entry for whole row
variables. Instead of unconditionally adding a wholerow entry we could
pull up the expression if needed, but doing it unconditionally seems
simpler. The wholerow entry is only really needed for ruleutils/EXPLAIN
support anyway.
The remaining two issues are addressed by changing the EXCLUDED RTE to
have relkind = composite. That fits with EXCLUDED not actually being a
real relation, and allows to treat it differently in the relevant
places. scanRTEForColumn now skips looking up system columns when the
RTE has a composite relkind; fireRIRrules() already had a corresponding
check, thereby preventing RLS expansion on EXCLUDED.
Also add tests for these issues, and improve a few comments around
excluded handling in setrefs.c.
Reported-By: Peter Geoghegan, Geoff Winkless
Author: Andres Freund, Amit Langote, Peter Geoghegan
Discussion: CAEzk6fdzJ3xYQZGbcuYM2rBd2BuDkUksmK=mY9UYYDugg_GgZg@mail.gmail.com,
CAM3SWZS+CauzbiCEcg-GdE6K6ycHE_Bz6Ksszy8AoixcMHOmsA@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 9.5, where ON CONFLICT was introduced
When taking the UPDATE path in an INSERT .. ON CONFLICT .. UPDATE tables
with oids were not supported. The tuple generated by the update target
list was projected without space for an oid - a simple oversight.
Reported-By: Peter Geoghegan
Author: Andres Freund
Backpatch: 9.5, where ON CONFLICT was introduced
ON CONFLICT unique index inference had a thinko that could affect cases
where the user-supplied inference clause required that an attribute
match a particular (user specified) collation and/or opclass.
infer_collation_opclass_match() has to check for opclass and/or
collation matches and that the attribute is in the list of attributes or
expressions known to be in the definition of the index under
consideration. The bug was that these two conditions weren't necessarily
evaluated for the same index attribute.
Author: Peter Geoghegan
Discussion: CAM3SWZR4uug=WvmGk7UgsqHn2MkEzy9YU-+8jKGO4JPhesyeWg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 9.5, where ON CONFLICT was introduced
The previous coding was a leftover from attempting to hang all the on
conflict logic onto modify table's child nodes. It appears to not have
actually caused problems except for explain.
Add test exercising the broken and some other code paths.
Author: Peter Geoghegan and Andres Freund
The newly added ON CONFLICT clause allows to specify an alternative to
raising a unique or exclusion constraint violation error when inserting.
ON CONFLICT refers to constraints that can either be specified using a
inference clause (by specifying the columns of a unique constraint) or
by naming a unique or exclusion constraint. DO NOTHING avoids the
constraint violation, without touching the pre-existing row. DO UPDATE
SET ... [WHERE ...] updates the pre-existing tuple, and has access to
both the tuple proposed for insertion and the existing tuple; the
optional WHERE clause can be used to prevent an update from being
executed. The UPDATE SET and WHERE clauses have access to the tuple
proposed for insertion using the "magic" EXCLUDED alias, and to the
pre-existing tuple using the table name or its alias.
This feature is often referred to as upsert.
This is implemented using a new infrastructure called "speculative
insertion". It is an optimistic variant of regular insertion that first
does a pre-check for existing tuples and then attempts an insert. If a
violating tuple was inserted concurrently, the speculatively inserted
tuple is deleted and a new attempt is made. If the pre-check finds a
matching tuple the alternative DO NOTHING or DO UPDATE action is taken.
If the insertion succeeds without detecting a conflict, the tuple is
deemed inserted.
To handle the possible ambiguity between the excluded alias and a table
named excluded, and for convenience with long relation names, INSERT
INTO now can alias its target table.
Bumps catversion as stored rules change.
Author: Peter Geoghegan, with significant contributions from Heikki
Linnakangas and Andres Freund. Testing infrastructure by Jeff Janes.
Reviewed-By: Heikki Linnakangas, Andres Freund, Robert Haas, Simon Riggs,
Dean Rasheed, Stephen Frost and many others.
Robert Haas
Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane
Andres Freund