Commit 9b63c13f0 turns out to have been fundamentally misguided:
the parent node's subPlan list is by no means the only way in which
a child SubPlan node can be hooked into the outer execution state.
As shown in bug #16213 from Matt Jibson, we can also get short-lived
tuple table slots added to the outer es_tupleTable list. At this point
I have little faith that there aren't other possible connections as
well; the long time it took to notice this problem shows that this
isn't a heavily-exercised situation.
Therefore, revert that fix, returning to the coding that passed a
NULL parent plan pointer down to the transiently-built subexpressions.
That gives us a pretty good guarantee that they won't hook into the
outer executor state in any way. But then we need some other solution
to make SubPlans work. Adopt the solution speculated about in the
previous commit's log message: do expression initialization at plan
startup for just those VALUES rows containing SubPlans, abandoning the
goal of reclaiming memory intra-query for those rows. In practice it
seems unlikely that queries containing a vast number of VALUES rows
would be using SubPlans in them, so this should not give up much.
(BTW, this test case also refutes my claim in connection with the prior
commit that the issue only arises with use of LATERAL. That was just
wrong: some variants of SubLink always produce SubPlans.)
As with previous patch, back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16213-871ac3bc208ecf23@postgresql.org
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
In a lot of nodes the return slot is not required. That can either be
because the node doesn't do any projection (say an Append node), or
because the node does perform projections but the projection is
optimized away because the projection would yield an identical row.
Slots aren't that small, especially for wide rows, so it's worthwhile
to avoid creating them. It's not possible to just skip creating the
slot - it's currently used to determine the tuple descriptor returned
by ExecGetResultType(). So separate the determination of the result
type from the slot creation. The work previously done internally
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() can now also be done separately with
ExecInitResultTypeTL() and ExecInitResultSlot(). That way nodes that
aren't guaranteed to need a result slot, can use
ExecInitResultTypeTL() to determine the result type of the node, and
ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo() (via
ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo()) determines that a result slot
is needed, it is created with ExecInitResultSlot().
Besides the advantage of avoiding to create slots that then are
unused, this is necessary preparation for later patches around tuple
table slot abstraction. In particular separating the return descriptor
and slot is a prerequisite to allow JITing of tuple deforming with
knowledge of the underlying tuple format, and to avoid unnecessarily
creating JITed tuple deforming for virtual slots.
This commit removes a redundant argument from
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL(). While this commit touches a lot of the
relevant lines anyway, it'd normally still not worthwhile to cause
breakage, except that aforementioned later commits will touch *all*
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() callers anyway (but fits worse
thematically).
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
In addition to the interpretation of expressions (which back
evaluation of WHERE clauses, target list projection, aggregates
transition values etc) support compiling expressions to native code,
using the infrastructure added in earlier commits.
To avoid duplicating a lot of code, only support emitting code for
cases that are likely to be performance critical. For expression steps
that aren't deemed that, use the existing interpreter.
The generated code isn't great - some architectural changes are
required to address that. But this already yields a significant
speedup for some analytics queries, particularly with WHERE clauses
filtering a lot, or computing multiple aggregates.
Author: Andres Freund
Tested-By: Thomas Munro
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de
Disable JITing for VALUES() nodes.
VALUES() nodes are only ever executed once. This is primarily helpful
for debugging, when forcing JITing even for cheap queries.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de
The reason for doing so is that it will allow expression evaluation to
optimize based on the underlying tupledesc. In particular it will
allow to JIT tuple deforming together with the expression itself.
For that expression initialization needs to be moved after the
relevant slots are initialized - mostly unproblematic, except in the
case of nodeWorktablescan.c.
After doing so there's no need for ExecAssignResultType() and
ExecAssignResultTypeFromTL() anymore, as all former callers have been
converted to create a slot with a fixed descriptor.
When creating a slot with a fixed descriptor, tts_values/isnull can be
allocated together with the main slot, reducing allocation overhead
and increasing cache density a bit.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171206093717.vqdxe5icqttpxs3p@alap3.anarazel.de
When nodeValuesscan.c was written, it was impossible to have a SubPlan in
VALUES --- any sub-SELECT there would have to be uncorrelated and thereby
would produce an InitPlan instead. We therefore took a shortcut in the
logic that throws away a ValuesScan's per-row expression evaluation data
structures. This was broken by the introduction of LATERAL however; a
sub-SELECT containing a lateral reference produces a correlated SubPlan.
The cleanest fix for this would be to give up the optimization of
discarding the expression eval state. But that still seems pretty
unappetizing for long VALUES lists. It seems to work to just prevent
the subexpressions from hooking into the ValuesScan node's subPlan
list, so let's do that and see how well it works. (If this breaks,
due to additional connections between the subexpressions and the outer
query structures, we might consider compromises like throwing away data
only for VALUES rows not containing SubPlans.)
Per bug #14924 from Christian Duta. Back-patch to 9.3 where LATERAL
was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171124120836.1463.5310@wrigleys.postgresql.org
This is a mechanical change in preparation for a later commit that
will change the layout of TupleDesc. Introducing a macro to abstract
the details of where attributes are stored will allow us to change
that in separate step and revise it in future.
Author: Thomas Munro, editorialized by Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
This allows us to add stack-depth checks the first time an executor
node is called, and skip that overhead on following
calls. Additionally it yields a nice speedup.
While it'd probably have been a good idea to have that check all
along, it has become more important after the new expression
evaluation framework in b8d7f053c5 - there's no stack depth
check in common paths anymore now. We previously relied on
ExecEvalExpr() being executed somewhere.
We should move towards that model for further routines, but as this is
required for v10, it seems better to only do the necessary (which
already is quite large).
Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane
Reported-By: Julien Rouhaud
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.ushttps://postgr.es/m/b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com
This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with
non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation.
Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation.
This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes
future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier.
The speed gains primarily come from:
- non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead
- simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without
function calls
- sharing some state between different sub-expressions
- reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying
out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of
nearly all of the previously used linked lists
- more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding
constant re-checks at evaluation time
Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as
demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later
release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split
between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be
handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the
generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can
easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation.
The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.:
- basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup
overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared
statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where
initialization overhead is measurable.
- optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential
work has already been made.
- optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have
been made here too.
The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some
backward-incompatible changes:
- Function permission checks are now done during expression
initialization, whereas previously they were done during
execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that
previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a
different array type previously didn't perform checks.
- The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once
during expression initialization, previously it was re-built
every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this
doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches
ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior
around might still change.
Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane,
changes by Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
Since 69f4b9c plain expression evaluation (and thus normal projection)
can't return sets of tuples anymore. Thus remove code dealing with
that possibility.
This will require adjustments in external code using
ExecEvalExpr()/ExecProject() - that should neither be hard nor very
common.
Author: Andres Freund and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160822214023.aaxz5l4igypowyri@alap3.anarazel.de
Further thought about bug #14174 motivated me to try the case of a
R/W datum being returned from a VALUES list, and sure enough it was
broken. Fix that.
Also add a regression test case exercising the same scenario for
FunctionScan. That's not broken right now, because the function's
result will get shoved into a tuplestore between generation and use;
but it could easily become broken whenever we get around to optimizing
FunctionScan better.
There don't seem to be any other places where we put the result of
expression evaluation into a virtual tuple slot that could then be
the source for Vars of further expression evaluation, so I think
this is the end of this bug.
There seems no prospect that any of this will ever be useful, and indeed
it's questionable whether some of it would work if it ever got called;
it's certainly not been exercised in a very long time, if ever. So let's
get rid of it, and make the comments about mark/restore in execAmi.c less
wishy-washy.
The mark/restore support for Result nodes is also currently dead code,
but that's due to planner limitations not because it's impossible that
it could be useful. So I left it in.
At one time it wasn't terribly important what column names were associated
with the fields of a composite Datum, but since the introduction of
operations like row_to_json(), it's important that looking up the rowtype
ID embedded in the Datum returns the column names that users would expect.
That did not work terribly well before this patch: you could get the column
names of the underlying table, or column aliases from any level of the
query, depending on minor details of the plan tree. You could even get
totally empty field names, which is disastrous for cases like row_to_json().
To fix this for whole-row Vars, look to the RTE referenced by the Var, and
make sure its column aliases are applied to the rowtype associated with
the result Datums. This is a tad scary because we might have to return
a transient RECORD type even though the Var is declared as having some
named rowtype. In principle it should be all right because the record
type will still be physically compatible with the named rowtype; but
I had to weaken one Assert in ExecEvalConvertRowtype, and there might be
third-party code containing similar assumptions.
Similarly, RowExprs have to be willing to override the column names coming
from a named composite result type and produce a RECORD when the column
aliases visible at the site of the RowExpr differ from the underlying
table's column names.
In passing, revert the decision made in commit 398f70ec07 to add
an alias-list argument to ExecTypeFromExprList: better to provide that
functionality in a separate function. This also reverts most of the code
changes in d685814835, which we don't need because we're no longer
depending on the tupdesc found in the child plan node's result slot to be
blessed.
Back-patch to 9.4, but not earlier, since this solution changes the results
in some cases that users might not have realized were buggy. We'll apply a
more restricted form of this patch in older branches.
The hstore and json datatypes both have record-conversion functions that
pay attention to column names in the composite values they're handed.
We used to not worry about inserting correct field names into tuple
descriptors generated at runtime, but given these examples it seems
useful to do so. Observe the nicer-looking results in the regression
tests whose results changed.
catversion bump because there is a subtle change in requirements for stored
rule parsetrees: RowExprs from ROW() constructs now have to include field
names.
Andrew Dunstan and Tom Lane
relation using the general PARAM_EXEC executor parameter mechanism, rather
than the ad-hoc kluge of passing the outer tuple down through ExecReScan.
The previous method was hard to understand and could never be extended to
handle parameters coming from multiple join levels. This patch doesn't
change the set of possible plans nor have any significant performance effect,
but it's necessary infrastructure for future generalization of the concept
of an inner indexscan plan.
ExecReScan's second parameter is now unused, so it's removed.
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.
Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.
This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
useless substructure for its RangeTblEntry nodes. (I chose to keep using the
same struct node type and just zero out the link fields for unneeded info,
rather than making a separate ExecRangeTblEntry type --- it seemed too
fragile to have two different rangetable representations.)
Along the way, put subplans into a list in the toplevel PlannedStmt node,
and have SubPlan nodes refer to them by list index instead of direct pointers.
Vadim wanted to do that years ago, but I never understood what he was on about
until now. It makes things a *whole* lot more robust, because we can stop
worrying about duplicate processing of subplans during expression tree
traversals. That's been a constant source of bugs, and it's finally gone.
There are some consequent simplifications yet to be made, like not using
a separate EState for subplans in the executor, but I'll tackle that later.
plan nodes, so that the executor does not need to get these items from
the range table at runtime. This will avoid needing to include these
fields in the compact range table I'm expecting to make the executor use.
ps_TupFromTlist in plan nodes that make use of it. This was being done
correctly in join nodes and Result nodes but not in any relation-scan nodes.
Bug would lead to bogus results if a set-returning function appeared in the
targetlist of a subquery that could be rescanned after partial execution,
for example a subquery within EXISTS(). Bug has been around forever :-(
... surprising it wasn't reported before.
temporary context that can be reset when advancing to the next sublist.
This is faster and more thorough at recovering space than the previous
method; moreover it will do the right thing if something in the sublist
tries to register an expression context callback.
(e.g. "INSERT ... VALUES (...), (...), ...") and elsewhere as allowed
by the spec. (e.g. similar to a FROM clause subselect). initdb required.
Joe Conway and Tom Lane.
Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian
Andres Freund
Magnus Hagander
Joe Conway