Hash partitioning is useful when you want to partition a growing data
set evenly. This can be useful to keep table sizes reasonable, which
makes maintenance operations such as VACUUM faster, or to enable
partition-wise join.
At present, we still depend on constraint exclusion for partitioning
pruning, and the shape of the partition constraints for hash
partitioning is such that that doesn't work. Work is underway to fix
that, which should both improve performance and make partitioning
pruning work with hash partitioning.
Amul Sul, reviewed and tested by Dilip Kumar, Ashutosh Bapat, Yugo
Nagata, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Jesper Pedersen, and by me. A few
final tweaks also by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b96fhpJAP=ALbETmeLk1Uni_GFZD938zgenhF49qgDTjaQ@mail.gmail.com
Record partitioned table dependencies as DEPENDENCY_AUTO
rather than DEPENDENCY_NORMAL, so that DROP TABLE just works.
Remove all the tests for partitioned tables where earlier
work had deliberately avoided using CASCADE.
Amit Langote, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat and myself
Table partitioning is like table inheritance and reuses much of the
existing infrastructure, but there are some important differences.
The parent is called a partitioned table and is always empty; it may
not have indexes or non-inherited constraints, since those make no
sense for a relation with no data of its own. The children are called
partitions and contain all of the actual data. Each partition has an
implicit partitioning constraint. Multiple inheritance is not
allowed, and partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. Partitions
can't have extra columns and may not allow nulls unless the parent
does. Tuples inserted into the parent are automatically routed to the
correct partition, so tuple-routing ON INSERT triggers are not needed.
Tuple routing isn't yet supported for partitions which are foreign
tables, and it doesn't handle updates that cross partition boundaries.
Currently, tables can be range-partitioned or list-partitioned. List
partitioning is limited to a single column, but range partitioning can
involve multiple columns. A partitioning "column" can be an
expression.
Because table partitioning is less general than table inheritance, it
is hoped that it will be easier to reason about properties of
partitions, and therefore that this will serve as a better foundation
for a variety of possible optimizations, including query planner
optimizations. The tuple routing based which this patch does based on
the implicit partitioning constraints is an example of this, but it
seems likely that many other useful optimizations are also possible.
Amit Langote, reviewed and tested by Robert Haas, Ashutosh Bapat,
Amit Kapila, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Corey Huinker, Jaime Casanova,
Rushabh Lathia, Erik Rijkers, among others. Minor revisions by me.
Previously, the right-hand side of a multiple-column assignment, if it
wasn't a sub-SELECT, had to be a simple parenthesized expression list,
because gram.y was responsible for "bursting" the construct into
independent column assignments. This had the minor defect that you
couldn't write ROW (though you should be able to, since the standard says
this is a row constructor), and the rather larger defect that unlike other
uses of row constructors, we would not expand a "foo.*" item into multiple
columns.
Fix that by changing the RHS to be just "a_expr" in the grammar, leaving
it to transformMultiAssignRef to separate the elements of a RowExpr;
which it will do only after performing standard transformation of the
RowExpr, so that "foo.*" behaves as expected.
The key reason we didn't do that before was the hard-wired handling of
DEFAULT tokens (SetToDefault nodes). This patch deals with that issue by
allowing DEFAULT in any a_expr and having parse analysis throw an error
if SetToDefault is found in an unexpected place. That's an improvement
anyway since the error can be more specific than just "syntax error".
The SQL standard suggests that the RHS could be any a_expr yielding a
suitable row value. This patch doesn't really move the goal posts in that
respect --- you're still limited to RowExpr or a sub-SELECT --- but it does
fix the grammar restriction, so it provides some tangible progress towards
a full implementation. And the limitation is now documented by an explicit
error message rather than an unhelpful "syntax error".
Discussion: <8542.1479742008@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Because we use transformTargetList() for UPDATE as well as SELECT
tlists, the code accidentally tried to expand a "*" reference into
several columns. This is nonsensical, because the UPDATE syntax
provides exactly one target column to put the value into. The
immediate result was that transformUpdateTargetList() got confused
and reported "UPDATE target count mismatch --- internal error".
It seems better to treat such a reference as a plain whole-row
variable, as it would be in other contexts. (This could produce
useful results when the target column is of composite type.)
Fix by tweaking transformTargetList() to perform *-expansion only
conditionally, depending on its exprKind parameter.
Back-patch to 9.3. The problem exists further back, but a fix would be
much more invasive before that, because transformTargetList() wasn't
told what kind of list it was working on. Doesn't seem worth the
trouble given the lack of field reports. (I only noticed it because
I was checking the code while trying to improve the documentation about
how we handle "foo.*".)
Discussion: <4308.1479595330@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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.
This SQL-standard feature allows a sub-SELECT yielding multiple columns
(but only one row) to be used to compute the new values of several columns
to be updated. While the same results can be had with an independent
sub-SELECT per column, such a workaround can require a great deal of
duplicated computation.
The standard actually says that the source for a multi-column assignment
could be any row-valued expression. The implementation used here is
tightly tied to our existing sub-SELECT support and can't handle other
cases; the Bison grammar would have some issues with them too. However,
I don't feel too bad about this since other cases can be converted into
sub-SELECTs. For instance, "SET (a,b,c) = row_valued_function(x)" could
be written "SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT * FROM row_valued_function(x))".
Per recent discussion, add_missing_from has been deprecated for long enough to
consider removing, and it's getting in the way of planned parser refactoring.
The system now always behaves as though add_missing_from were OFF.
of the syntax as this fundamentally dead-end approach can, in particular
combinations of single and multi column assignments. Improve rather
inadequate documentation and provide some regression tests.
and DELETE. If specified, the alias must be used instead of the full
table name. Also, the alias currently cannot be used in the SET clause
of UPDATE.
Patch from Atsushi Ogawa, various editorialization by Neil Conway.
Along the way, make the rowtypes regression test pass if add_missing_from
is enabled, and add a new (skeletal) regression test for DELETE.
now all that is tested is Rod Taylor's recent addition to allow
this syntax:
UPDATE ... SET <col> = DEFAULT;
If anyone else would like to add more UPDATE tests, go ahead --
I just wanted to write a test for the above functionality, and
couldn't see an existing test that it would be appropriate
to add to.
Neil Conway