PG_MODULE_MAGIC has been around since 8.2, with 8.1 long since in EOL,
so remove the mention of #ifdef guards for compiling against pre-8.2
sources from the documentation.
Author: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Comment the fields of GatherMergeState, and organize them a bit more
sensibly. Comment GMReaderTupleBuffer more usefully too. Improve
assorted other comments that were obsolete or just not very good English.
Get rid of the use of a GMReaderTupleBuffer for the leader process;
that was confusing, since only the "done" field was used, and that
in a way redundant with need_to_scan_locally.
In gather_merge_init, avoid calling load_tuple_array for
already-known-exhausted workers. I'm not sure if there's a live bug there,
but the case is unlikely to be well tested due to timing considerations.
Remove some useless code, such as duplicating the tts_isempty test done by
TupIsNull.
Remove useless initialization of ps.qual, replacing that with an assertion
that we have no qual to check. (If we did, the code would fail to check
it.)
Avoid applying heap_copytuple to a null tuple. While that fails to crash,
it's confusing and it makes the code less legible not more so IMO.
Propagate a couple of these changes into nodeGather.c, as well.
Back-patch to v10, partly because of the possibility that the
gather_merge_init change is fixing a live bug, but mostly to keep
the branches in sync to ease future bug fixes.
Previously, the parallel executor logic did reinitialization of shared
state within the ExecReScan code for parallel-aware scan nodes. This is
problematic, because it means that the ExecReScan call has to occur
synchronously (ie, during the parent Gather node's ReScan call). That is
swimming very much against the tide so far as the ExecReScan machinery is
concerned; the fact that it works at all today depends on a lot of fragile
assumptions, such as that no plan node between Gather and a parallel-aware
scan node is parameterized. Another objection is that because ExecReScan
might be called in workers as well as the leader, hacky extra tests are
needed in some places to prevent unwanted shared-state resets.
Hence, let's separate this code into two functions, a ReInitializeDSM
call and the ReScan call proper. ReInitializeDSM is called only in
the leader and is guaranteed to run before we start new workers.
ReScan is returned to its traditional function of resetting only local
state, which means that ExecReScan's usual habits of delaying or
eliminating child rescan calls are safe again.
As with the preceding commit 7df2c1f8d, it doesn't seem to be necessary
to make these changes in 9.6, which is a good thing because the FDW and
CustomScan APIs are impacted.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
The ExecReScan machinery contains various optimizations for postponing
or skipping rescans of plan subtrees; for example a HashAgg node may
conclude that it can re-use the table it built before, instead of
re-reading its input subtree. But that is wrong if the input contains
a parallel-aware table scan node, since the portion of the table scanned
by the leader process is likely to vary from one rescan to the next.
This explains the timing-dependent buildfarm failures we saw after
commit a2b70c89c.
The established mechanism for showing that a plan node's output is
potentially variable is to mark it as depending on some runtime Param.
Hence, to fix this, invent a dummy Param (one that has a PARAM_EXEC
parameter number, but carries no actual value) associated with each Gather
or GatherMerge node, mark parallel-aware nodes below that node as dependent
on that Param, and arrange for ExecReScanGather[Merge] to flag that Param
as changed whenever the Gather[Merge] node is rescanned.
This solution breaks an undocumented assumption made by the parallel
executor logic, namely that all rescans of nodes below a Gather[Merge]
will happen synchronously during the ReScan of the top node itself.
But that's fundamentally contrary to the design of the ExecReScan code,
and so was doomed to fail someday anyway (even if you want to argue
that the bug being fixed here wasn't a failure of that assumption).
A follow-on patch will address that issue. In the meantime, the worst
that's expected to happen is that given very bad timing luck, the leader
might have to do all the work during a rescan, because workers think
they have nothing to do, if they are able to start up before the eventual
ReScan of the leader's parallel-aware table scan node has reset the
shared scan state.
Although this problem exists in 9.6, there does not seem to be any way
for it to manifest there. Without GatherMerge, it seems that a plan tree
that has a rescan-short-circuiting node below Gather will always also
have one above it that will short-circuit in the same cases, preventing
the Gather from being rescanned. Hence we won't take the risk of
back-patching this change into 9.6. But v10 needs it.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
Adding more than 1 billion rows to a PGresult would overflow its ntups and
tupArrSize fields, leading to client crashes. It'd be desirable to use
wider fields on 64-bit machines, but because all of libpq's external APIs
use plain "int" for row counters, that's going to be hard to accomplish
without an ABI break. Given the lack of complaints so far, and the general
pain that would be involved in using such huge PGresults, let's settle for
just preventing the overflow and reporting a useful error message if it
does happen. Also, for a couple more lines of code we can increase the
threshold of trouble from INT_MAX/2 to INT_MAX rows.
To do that, refactor pqAddTuple() to allow returning an error message that
replaces the default assumption that it failed because of out-of-memory.
Along the way, fix PQsetvalue() so that it reports all failures via
pqInternalNotice(). It already did so in the case of bad field number,
but neglected to report anything for other error causes.
Because of the potential for crashes, this seems like a back-patchable
bug fix, despite the lack of field reports.
Michael Paquier, per a complaint from Igor Korot.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+FnnTxyLWyjY1goewmJNxC==HQCCF4fKkoCTa9qR36oRAHDPw@mail.gmail.com
Up until now, when parallel query was used, no details about the
sort method or space used by the workers were available; details
were shown only for any sorting done by the leader. Fix that.
Commit 1177ab1dab forced the test case
added by commit 1f6d515a67 to run
without parallelism; now that we have this infrastructure, allow
that again, with a little tweaking to make it pass with and without
force_parallel_mode.
Robert Haas and Tom Lane
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa2VBZW6S8AAXfhpHczb=Rf6RqQ2br+zJvEgwJ0uoD_tQ@mail.gmail.com
If we only need, say, 10 tuples in total, then we certainly don't need
more than 10 tuples from any single process. Pushing down the limit
lets workers exit early when possible. For Gather Merge, there is
an additional benefit: a Sort immediately below the Gather Merge can
be done as a bounded sort if there is an applicable limit.
Robert Haas and Tom Lane
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYa3QKKrLj5rX7UvGqhH73G1Li4B-EKxrmASaca2tFu9Q@mail.gmail.com
Fix thinko in commit 8be8510cf: it's okay to have dbid == 0 in normal
(non-pin) entries in pg_shdepend, because global objects such as
databases are entered that way. The test would pass so long as it
was run in a cluster containing no databases/tablespaces owned by,
or granted to, roles other than the bootstrap superuser. That's the
expected situation for "make check", but for "make installcheck", not
so much.
Reported by Ryan Murphy.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHeEsBc6EQe0mxGBKDXAwJbntgfvoAd5MQC-5362SmC3Tng_6g@mail.gmail.com
The string "% of total" was marked by xgettext to be a c-format, but it
is actually not, so mark up the source to prevent that.
Compute the column widths of the final display dynamically based on the
translated strings, so that translations don't mess up the display
accidentally.
Minor improvements for commit 1f6d515a6. We do not need the (rather
expensive) test for SRFs in the targetlist, because since v10 any
such SRFs would appear in separate ProjectSet nodes. Also, make the
code look more like the existing cases by turning it into a simple
recursion --- the argument that there might be some performance
benefit to contorting the code seems unfounded to me, especially since
any good compiler should turn the tail-recursion into iteration anyway.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CADE5jYLuugnEEUsyW6Q_4mZFYTxHxaVCQmGAsF0yiY8ZDggi-w@mail.gmail.com
Test that blessed records can be transferred through a TupleQueue and
correctly decoded by another backend. While touching the file, make
sure that force_parallel_mode settings only cover relevant tests.
Author: Thomas Munro, editorialized by Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170823054644.efuzftxjpfi6wwqs%40alap3.anarazel.de
Commit 8c0d7bafad introduced dshash with hash
and compare functions like DynaHash's, and also variants that take a user
data pointer instead of size. Simplify the interface by merging them into
a single pair of function pointer types that take both size and a user data
pointer.
Since it is anticipated that memcmp and tag_hash behavior will be a common
requirement, provide wrapper functions dshash_memcmp and dshash_memhash that
conform to the new function types.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170823054644.efuzftxjpfi6wwqs%40alap3.anarazel.de
Commit 16be2fd100 added DSA_ALLOC_HUGE,
DSA_ALLOC_ZERO and DSA_ALLOC_NO_OOM which have the same numerical
values and meanings as the similarly named MCXT_... macros. In one
place we accidentally used MCXT_ALLOC_NO_OOM when DSA_ALLOC_NO_OOM is
wanted, so tidy that up.
Author: Thomas Munro
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2AimHxVkkxnMfQvbZMkXy0uKbVa0-D38c5-qwrCm4CMQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 10, where dsa was introduced.
Remove code meant for upgrading to a particular version of PostgreSQL
9.0. Since pg_upgrade only supports upgrading to the current major
version, this code is no longer useful.
The test case added by commit 1f6d515a6 fails on buildfarm members that
have force_parallel_mode turned on, because we currently don't report sort
performance details from worker processes back to the master. To fix that,
just make the test table be temp rather than regular; that's a good idea
anyway to forestall any possible interference from auto-analyze.
(The restriction that workers can't access temp tables might go away
someday, but almost certainly not before the other thing gets fixed.)
Also, improve the test so that we retain as much as possible of the
EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. This aids debugging failures, and might also
expose problems that the preceding version masked.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CADE5jYLuugnEEUsyW6Q_4mZFYTxHxaVCQmGAsF0yiY8ZDggi-w@mail.gmail.com
Add general purpose chaining hash tables for DSA memory. Unlike
DynaHash in shared memory mode, these hash tables can grow as
required, and cope with being mapped into different addresses in
different backends.
There is a wide range of potential users for such a hash table, though
it's very likely the interface will need to evolve as we come to
understand the needs of different kinds of users. E.g support for
iterators and incremental resizing is planned for later commits and
the details of the callback signatures are likely to change.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: John Gorman, Andres Freund, Dilip Kumar, Robert Haas
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=3d8o8XdVwYT6O=bHKsKAM2pu2D6sV1S_=4d+jStVCE7w@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
Previously, tuple descriptors were stored in chains keyed by a fixed size
array of OIDs. That meant there were effectively two levels of collision
chain -- one inside and one outside the hash table. Instead, let dynahash.c
look after conflicts for us by supplying a proper hash and equal function
pair.
This is a nice cleanup on its own, but also simplifies followup
changes allowing blessed TupleDescs to be shared between backends
participating in parallel query.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D34GVhOL%2BarUx56yx7OPk7%3DqpGsv3CpO54feqjAwQKm5g%40mail.gmail.com
Users can still create them themselves. Instead, document Unicode TR 35
collation options for ICU, so users can create all this themselves.
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Install language+region combinations even if they are not distinct from
the language's base locale. This gives better long-term stability of
the set of predefined locales and makes the predefined locales less
implementation-dependent and more practical for users.
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Periodically while the server is running, and at shutdown, write out a
list of blocks in shared buffers. When the server reaches consistency
-- unfortunatey, we can't do it before that point without breaking
things -- reload those blocks into any still-unused shared buffers.
Mithun Cy and Robert Haas, reviewed and tested by Beena Emerson,
Amit Kapila, Jim Nasby, and Rafia Sabih.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAD__OugubOs1Vy7kgF6xTjmEqTR4CrGAv8w+ZbaY_+MZeitukw@mail.gmail.com
It appeared in a conditional that excludes AIX, Cygwin and MinGW. Give
ICU support a chance to work on those platforms. Back-patch to v10,
where ICU support was introduced.
TupleDesc's attributes were already stored in contiguous memory after the
struct. Go one step further and get rid of the array of pointers to
attributes so that they can be stored in shared memory mapped at different
addresses in each backend. This won't work for TupleDescs with contraints
and defaults, since those point to other objects, but for many purposes
only attributes are needed.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
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
Commit 3eb9a5e7c unintentionally introduced an ordering dependency
into restore_toc_entries_prefork(). The existing coding of
reduce_dependencies() contains a check to skip moving a TOC entry
to the ready_list if it wasn't initially in the pending_list.
This used to suffice to prevent reduce_dependencies() from trying to
move anything into the ready_list during restore_toc_entries_prefork(),
because the pending_list stayed empty throughout that phase; but it no
longer does. The problem doesn't manifest unless the TOC has been
reordered by SortTocFromFile, which is how I missed it in testing.
To fix, just add a test for ready_list == NULL, converting the call
with NULL from a poor man's sanity check into an explicit command
not to touch TOC items' list membership. Clarify some of the comments
around this; in particular, note the primary purpose of the check for
pending_list membership, which is to ensure that we can't try to restore
the same item twice, in case a TOC list forces it to be restored before
its dependency count goes to zero.
Per report from Fabrízio de Royes Mello. Back-patch to 9.3, like the
previous commit.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFcNs+pjuv0JL_x4+=71TPUPjdLHOXA4YfT32myj_OrrZb4ohA@mail.gmail.com
Add a new EState member es_leaf_result_relations, so that the trigger
code knows about ResultRelInfos created by tuple routing. Also make
sure ExplainPrintTriggers knows about partition-related
ResultRelInfos.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Amit Langote
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/57163e18-8e56-da83-337a-22f2c0008051@lab.ntt.co.jp
That code patch was good as far as it went, but the associated test case
has exposed fundamental brain damage in the parallel scan mechanism,
which is going to take nontrivial work to correct. In the interests of
getting the buildfarm back to green so that unrelated work can proceed,
let's temporarily remove the test case.
Instead, lock them in the caller using find_all_inheritors so that
they get locked in the standard order, minimizing deadlock risks.
Also in RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo, avoid opening tables which
are not partitioned; there's no need.
Amit Langote, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat and Amit Khandekar
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/91b36fa1-c197-b72f-ca6e-56c593bae68c@lab.ntt.co.jp
Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut
Robert Haas
Michael Meskes
Andres Freund
Stephen Frost
Noah Misch