eval_const_expressions sometimes produced RelabelType nodes that
were useless because they just relabeled an expression to the same
exposed type it already had. This is worth avoiding because it can
cause two equivalent expressions to not be equal(), preventing
recognition of useful optimizations. In the test case added here,
an unpatched planner fails to notice that the "sqli = constant" clause
renders a sort step unnecessary, because one code path produces an
extra RelabelType and another doesn't.
Fix by ensuring that eval_const_expressions_mutator's T_RelabelType
case will not add in an unnecessary RelabelType. Also save some
code by sharing a subroutine with the effectively-equivalent cases
for CollateExpr and CoerceToDomain. (CollateExpr had no bug, and
I think that the case couldn't arise with CoerceToDomain, but
it seems prudent to do the same check for all three cases.)
Back-patch to v12. In principle this has been wrong all along,
but I haven't seen a case where it causes visible misbehavior
before v12, so refrain from changing stable branches unnecessarily.
Per investigation of a report from Eric Gillum.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMmjdmvAZsUEskHYj=KT9sTukVVCiCSoe_PBKOXsncFeAUDPCQ@mail.gmail.com
If the operator is a strict btree equality operator, and X isn't volatile,
then the clause must yield true for any non-null value of X, or null if X
is null. At top level of a WHERE clause, we can ignore the distinction
between false and null results, so it's valid to simplify the clause to
"X IS NOT NULL". This is a useful improvement mainly because we'll get
a far better selectivity estimate in most cases.
Because such cases seldom arise in well-written queries, it is unappetizing
to expend a lot of planner cycles looking for them ... but it turns out
that there's a place we can shoehorn this in practically for free, because
equivclass.c already has to detect and reject candidate equivalences of the
form X = X. That doesn't catch every place that it would be valid to
simplify to X IS NOT NULL, but it catches the typical case. Working harder
doesn't seem justified.
Patch by me, reviewed by Petr Jelinek
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMjNa7cC4X9YR-vAJS-jSYCajhRDvJQnN7m2sLH1wLh-_Z2bsw@mail.gmail.com
In an RLS query, we must ensure that security filter quals are evaluated
before ordinary query quals, in case the latter contain "leaky" functions
that could expose the contents of sensitive rows. The original
implementation of RLS planning ensured this by pushing the scan of a
secured table into a sub-query that it marked as a security-barrier view.
Unfortunately this results in very inefficient plans in many cases, because
the sub-query cannot be flattened and gets planned independently of the
rest of the query.
To fix, drop the use of sub-queries to enforce RLS qual order, and instead
mark each qual (RestrictInfo) with a security_level field establishing its
priority for evaluation. Quals must be evaluated in security_level order,
except that "leakproof" quals can be allowed to go ahead of quals of lower
security_level, if it's helpful to do so. This has to be enforced within
the ordering of any one list of quals to be evaluated at a table scan node,
and we also have to ensure that quals are not chosen for early evaluation
(i.e., use as an index qual or TID scan qual) if they're not allowed to go
ahead of other quals at the scan node.
This is sufficient to fix the problem for RLS quals, since we only support
RLS policies on simple tables and thus RLS quals will always exist at the
table scan level only. Eventually these qual ordering rules should be
enforced for join quals as well, which would permit improving planning for
explicit security-barrier views; but that's a task for another patch.
Note that FDWs would need to be aware of these rules --- and not, for
example, send an insecure qual for remote execution --- but since we do
not yet allow RLS policies on foreign tables, the case doesn't arise.
This will need to be addressed before we can allow such policies.
Patch by me, reviewed by Stephen Frost and Dean Rasheed.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8185.1477432701@sss.pgh.pa.us
As of commit a87c72915 (which later got backpatched as far as 9.1),
we're explicitly supporting the notion that append relations can be
nested; this can occur when UNION ALL constructs are nested, or when
a UNION ALL contains a table with inheritance children.
Bug #11457 from Nelson Page, as well as an earlier report from Elvis
Pranskevichus, showed that there were still nasty bugs associated with such
cases: in particular the EquivalenceClass mechanism could try to generate
"join" clauses connecting an appendrel child to some grandparent appendrel,
which would result in assertion failures or bogus plans.
Upon investigation I concluded that all current callers of
find_childrel_appendrelinfo() need to be fixed to explicitly consider
multiple levels of parent appendrels. The most complex fix was in
processing of "broken" EquivalenceClasses, which are ECs for which we have
been unable to generate all the derived equality clauses we would like to
because of missing cross-type equality operators in the underlying btree
operator family. That code path is more or less entirely untested by
the regression tests to date, because no standard opfamilies have such
holes in them. So I wrote a new regression test script to try to exercise
it a bit, which turned out to be quite a worthwhile activity as it exposed
existing bugs in all supported branches.
The present patch is essentially the same as far back as 9.2, which is
where parameterized paths were introduced. In 9.0 and 9.1, we only need
to back-patch a small fragment of commit 5b7b5518d, which fixes failure to
propagate out the original WHERE clauses when a broken EC contains constant
members. (The regression test case results show that these older branches
are noticeably stupider than 9.2+ in terms of the quality of the plans
generated; but we don't really care about plan quality in such cases,
only that the plan not be outright wrong. A more invasive fix in the
older branches would not be a good idea anyway from a plan-stability
standpoint.)
Tom Lane