The point of this change is to increase the potential for parallelism
while running the core regression tests. Most people these days are
using parallel testing modes on multi-core machines, so we might as
well try a bit harder to keep multiple cores busy. Hence, a test that
runs much longer than others in its parallel group is a candidate to
be sub-divided.
In this patch, create_index.sql and join.sql are split up.
I haven't changed the content of the tests in any way, just
moved them.
I moved create_index.sql's SP-GiST-related tests into a new script
create_index_spgist, and moved its btree multilevel page deletion test
over to the existing script btree_index. (btree_index is a more natural
home for that test, and it's shorter than others in its parallel group,
so this doesn't hurt total runtime of that group.) There might be
room for more aggressive splitting of create_index, but this is enough
to improve matters considerably.
Likewise, I moved join.sql's "exercises for the hash join code" into
a new file join_hash. Those exercises contributed three-quarters of
the script's runtime. Which might well be excessive ... but for the
moment, I'm satisfied with shoving them into a different parallel
group, where they can share runtime with the roughly-equally-lengthy
gist test.
(Note for anybody following along at home: there are interesting
interactions between the runtimes of create_index and anything running
in parallel with it, because the tests of CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY
in that file will repeatedly block waiting for concurrent transactions
to commit. As committed in this patch, create_index and
create_index_spgist have roughly equal runtimes, but that's mostly an
artifact of forced synchronization of the CONCURRENTLY tests; when run
serially, create_index is much faster. A followup patch will reduce
the runtime of create_index_spgist and thereby also create_index.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/735.1554935715@sss.pgh.pa.us
The assertions added by commits 34ea1ab7f et al found another problem:
set_dummy_rel_pathlist and mark_dummy_rel were failing to label
the dummy paths they create with the correct outer_relids, in case
the relation is necessarily parameterized due to having lateral
references in its tlist. It's likely that this has no user-visible
consequences in production builds, at the moment; but still an assertion
failure is a bad thing, so back-patch the fix.
Per bug #15694 from Roman Zharkov (via Alexander Lakhin)
and an independent report by Tushar Ahuja.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15694-74f2ca97e7044f7f@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7d72ab20-c725-3ce2-f99d-4e64dd8a0de6@enterprisedb.com
There isn't any good reason for this test to be a self-join rather
than a join between separate tables, except that it saved a couple
of SQL commands for setup. A proposed patch to optimize away
self-joins breaks the test, so adjust it to avoid that happening.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/64486b0b-0404-e39e-322d-0801154901f3@postgrespro.ru
The fact that "SELECT expression" has no base relations has long been a
thorn in the side of the planner. It makes it hard to flatten a sub-query
that looks like that, or is a trivial VALUES() item, because the planner
generally uses relid sets to identify sub-relations, and such a sub-query
would have an empty relid set if we flattened it. prepjointree.c contains
some baroque logic that works around this in certain special cases --- but
there is a much better answer. We can replace an empty FROM clause with a
dummy RTE that acts like a table of one row and no columns, and then there
are no such corner cases to worry about. Instead we need some logic to
get rid of useless dummy RTEs, but that's simpler and covers more cases
than what was there before.
For really trivial cases, where the query is just "SELECT expression" and
nothing else, there's a hazard that adding the extra RTE makes for a
noticeable slowdown; even though it's not much processing, there's not
that much for the planner to do overall. However testing says that the
penalty is very small, close to the noise level. In more complex queries,
this is able to find optimizations that we could not find before.
The new RTE type is called RTE_RESULT, since the "scan" plan type it
gives rise to is a Result node (the same plan we produced for a "SELECT
expression" query before). To avoid confusion, rename the old ResultPath
path type to GroupResultPath, reflecting that it's only used in degenerate
grouping cases where we know the query produces just one grouped row.
(It wouldn't work to unify the two cases, because there are different
rules about where the associated quals live during query_planner.)
Note: although this touches readfuncs.c, I don't think a catversion
bump is required, because the added case can't occur in stored rules,
only plans.
Patch by me, reviewed by David Rowley and Mark Dilger
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15944.1521127664@sss.pgh.pa.us
This prevents failures in cases where we pull up a constant or var-free
expression from a subquery and put it into a full join's qual. That can
result in not recognizing the qual as containing a mergejoin-able or
hashjoin-able condition. A PHV prevents the problem because it is still
recognized as belonging to the side of the join the subquery is in.
I'm not very sure about the net effect of this change on plan quality.
In "typical" cases where the join keys are Vars, nothing changes.
In an affected case, the PHV-wrapped expression is less likely to be seen
as equal to PHV-less instances below the join, but more likely to be seen
as equal to similar expressions above the join, so it may end up being a
wash. In the one existing case where there's any visible change in a
regression-test plan, it amounts to referencing a lower computation of a
COALESCE result instead of recomputing it, which seems like a win.
Given my uncertainty about that and the lack of field complaints,
no back-patch, even though this is a very ancient problem.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/32090.1539378124@sss.pgh.pa.us
canonicalize_ec_expression() is supposed to agree with coerce_type() as to
whether a RelabelType should be inserted to make a subexpression be valid
input for the operators of a given opclass. However, it did the wrong
thing with named-composite-type inputs to record_eq(): it put in a
RelabelType to RECORDOID, which the parser doesn't. In some cases this was
harmless because all code paths involving a particular equivalence class
did the same thing, but in other cases this would result in failing to
recognize a composite-type expression as being a member of an equivalence
class that it actually is a member of. The most obvious bad effect was to
fail to recognize that an index on a composite column could provide the
sort order needed for a mergejoin on that column, as reported by Teodor
Sigaev. I think there might be other, subtler, cases that result in
misoptimization. It also seems possible that an unwanted RelabelType
would sometimes get into an emitted plan --- but because record_eq and
friends don't examine the declared type of their input expressions, that
would not create any visible problems.
To fix, just treat RECORDOID as if it were a polymorphic type, which in
some sense it is. We might want to consider formalizing that a bit more
someday, but for the moment this seems to be the only place where an
IsPolymorphicType() test ought to include RECORDOID as well.
This has been broken for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/a6b22369-e3bf-4d49-f59d-0c41d3551e81@sigaev.ru
In some cases a clause attached to an outer join can be pushed down into
the outer join's RHS even though the clause is not degenerate --- this
can happen if we choose to make a parameterized path for the RHS. If
the clause ends up attached to a lower outer join, we'd misclassify it
as being a "join filter" not a plain "filter" condition at that node,
leading to wrong query results.
To fix, teach extract_actual_join_clauses to examine each join clause's
required_relids, not just its is_pushed_down flag. (The latter now
seems vestigial, or at least in need of rethinking, but we won't do
anything so invasive as redefining it in a bug-fix patch.)
This has been wrong since we introduced parameterized paths in 9.2,
though it's evidently hard to hit given the lack of previous reports.
The test case used here involves a lateral function call, and I think
that a lateral reference may be required to get the planner to select
a broken plan; though I wouldn't swear to that. In any case, even if
LATERAL is needed to trigger the bug, it still affects all supported
branches, so back-patch to all.
Per report from Andreas Karlsson. Thanks to Andrew Gierth for
preliminary investigation.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f8128b11-c5bf-3539-48cd-234178b2314d@proxel.se
Many of the objects we create during the regression tests are put in the
public schema, so that using the same names in different regression tests
creates a hazard of test failures if any two such scripts run concurrently.
This patch cleans up a bunch of latent hazards of that sort, as well as two
live hazards.
The current situation in this regard is far worse than it was a year or two
back, because practically all of the partitioning-related test cases have
reused table names with enthusiasm. I despaired of cleaning up that mess
within the five most-affected tests (create_table, alter_table, insert,
update, inherit); fortunately those don't run concurrently.
Other than partitioning problems, most of the issues boil down to using
names like "foo", "bar", "tmp", etc, without thought for the fact that
other test scripts might use similar names concurrently. I've made an
effort to make all such names more specific.
One of the live hazards was that commit 7421f4b8 caused with.sql to
create a table named "test", conflicting with a similarly-named table
in alter_table.sql; this was exposed in the buildfarm recently.
The other one was that join.sql and transactions.sql both create tables
named "foo" and "bar"; but join.sql's uses of those names date back
only to December or so.
Since commit 7421f4b8 was back-patched to v10, back-patch a minimal
fix for that problem. The rest of this is just future-proofing.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4627.1521070268@sss.pgh.pa.us
Given overlapping or partially redundant join clauses, for example
t1 JOIN t2 ON t1.a = t2.x AND t1.b = t2.x
the planner's EquivalenceClass machinery will ordinarily refactor the
clauses as "t1.a = t1.b AND t1.a = t2.x", so that join processing doesn't
see multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass in a list of join
equality clauses. However, if the join is outer, it's incorrect to derive
a restriction clause on the outer side from the join conditions, so the
clause refactoring does not happen and we end up with overlapping join
conditions. The code that attempted to deal with such cases had several
subtle bugs, which could result in "left and right pathkeys do not match in
mergejoin" or "outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses" planner errors,
if the selected join plan type was a mergejoin. (It does not appear that
any actually incorrect plan could have been emitted.)
The core of the problem really was failure to recognize that the outer and
inner relations' pathkeys have different relationships to the mergeclause
list. A join's mergeclause list is constructed by reference to the outer
pathkeys, so it will always be ordered the same as the outer pathkeys, but
this cannot be presumed true for the inner pathkeys. If the inner sides of
the mergeclauses contain multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass
({t2.x} in the above example) then a simplistic rendering of the required
inner sort order is like "ORDER BY t2.x, t2.x", but the pathkey machinery
recognizes that the second sort column is redundant and throws it away.
The mergejoin planning code failed to account for that behavior properly.
One error was to try to generate cut-down versions of the mergeclause list
from cut-down versions of the inner pathkeys in the same way as the initial
construction of the mergeclause list from the outer pathkeys was done; this
could lead to choosing a mergeclause list that fails to match the outer
pathkeys. The other problem was that the pathkey cross-checking code in
create_mergejoin_plan treated the inner and outer pathkey lists
identically, whereas actually the expectations for them must be different.
That led to false "pathkeys do not match" failures in some cases, and in
principle could have led to failure to detect bogus plans in other cases,
though there is no indication that such bogus plans could be generated.
Reported by Alexander Kuzmenkov, who also reviewed this patch. This has
been broken for years (back to around 8.3 according to my testing), so
back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5dad9160-4632-0e47-e120-8e2082000c01@postgrespro.ru
If we're inside a lateral subquery, there may be no unparameterized paths
for a particular child relation of an appendrel, in which case we *must*
be able to create similarly-parameterized paths for each other child
relation, else the planner will fail with "could not devise a query plan
for the given query". This means that there are situations where we'd
better be able to reparameterize at least one path for each child.
This calls into question the assumption in reparameterize_path() that
it can just punt if it feels like it. However, the only case that is
known broken right now is where the child is itself an appendrel so that
all its paths are AppendPaths. (I think possibly I disregarded that in
the original coding on the theory that nested appendrels would get folded
together --- but that only happens *after* reparameterize_path(), so it's
not excused from handling a child AppendPath.) Given that this code's been
like this since 9.3 when LATERAL was introduced, it seems likely we'd have
heard of other cases by now if there were a larger problem.
Per report from Elvis Pranskevichus. Back-patch to 9.3.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5981018.zdth1YWmNy@hammer.magicstack.net
Introduce parallel-aware hash joins that appear in EXPLAIN plans as Parallel
Hash Join with Parallel Hash. While hash joins could already appear in
parallel queries, they were previously always parallel-oblivious and had a
partial subplan only on the outer side, meaning that the work of the inner
subplan was duplicated in every worker.
After this commit, the planner will consider using a partial subplan on the
inner side too, using the Parallel Hash node to divide the work over the
available CPU cores and combine its results in shared memory. If the join
needs to be split into multiple batches in order to respect work_mem, then
workers process different batches as much as possible and then work together
on the remaining batches.
The advantages of a parallel-aware hash join over a parallel-oblivious hash
join used in a parallel query are that it:
* avoids wasting memory on duplicated hash tables
* avoids wasting disk space on duplicated batch files
* divides the work of building the hash table over the CPUs
One disadvantage is that there is some communication between the participating
CPUs which might outweigh the benefits of parallelism in the case of small
hash tables. This is avoided by the planner's existing reluctance to supply
partial plans for small scans, but it may be necessary to estimate
synchronization costs in future if that situation changes. Another is that
outer batch 0 must be written to disk if multiple batches are required.
A potential future advantage of parallel-aware hash joins is that right and
full outer joins could be supported, since there is a single set of matched
bits for each hashtable, but that is not yet implemented.
A new GUC enable_parallel_hash is defined to control the feature, defaulting
to on.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Robert Haas
Tested-By: Rafia Sabih, Prabhat Sahu
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
If a hash join appears in a parallel query, there may be no hash table
available for explain.c to inspect even though a hash table may have
been built in other processes. This could happen either because
parallel_leader_participation was set to off or because the leader
happened to hit the end of the outer relation immediately (even though
the complete relation is not empty) and decided not to build the hash
table.
Commit bf11e7ee introduced a way for workers to exchange
instrumentation via the DSM segment for Sort nodes even though they
are not parallel-aware. This commit does the same for Hash nodes, so
that explain.c has a way to find instrumentation data from an
arbitrary participant that actually built the hash table.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D3DUQC2-z252N55eOcZBer6DPdM%3DFzrxH9dZc5vYLsjaA%40mail.gmail.com
Previously, this function estimated the selectivity as 1 minus eqjoinsel()
for the negator equality operator, regardless of join type (I think there
was an expectation that eqjoinsel would handle the join type). But
actually this is completely wrong for semijoin cases: the fraction of the
LHS that has a non-matching row is not one minus the fraction of the LHS
that has a matching row. In reality a semijoin with <> will nearly always
succeed: it can only fail when the RHS is empty, or it contains a single
distinct value that is equal to the particular LHS value, or the LHS value
is null. The only one of those things we should have much confidence in
estimating is the fraction of LHS values that are null, so let's just take
the selectivity as 1 minus outer nullfrac.
Per coding convention, antijoin should be estimated the same as semijoin.
Arguably this is a bug fix, but in view of the lack of field complaints
and the risk of destabilizing plans, no back-patch.
Thomas Munro, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=270ze2hVxWkJw-5eKzc3AB4C9KpH3L2kih75R5pdSogg@mail.gmail.com
Although hash joins are already tested by many queries, these tests
systematically cover the four different states we can reach as part of
the strategy for respecting work_mem.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Flattening the partitioning hierarchy at this stage makes various
desirable optimizations difficult. The original use case for this
patch was partition-wise join, which wants to match up the partitions
in one partitioning hierarchy with those in another such hierarchy.
However, it now seems that it will also be useful in making partition
pruning work using the PartitionDesc rather than constraint exclusion,
because with a flattened expansion, we have no easy way to figure out
which PartitionDescs apply to which leaf tables in a multi-level
partition hierarchy.
As it turns out, we end up creating both rte->inh and !rte->inh RTEs
for each intermediate partitioned table, just as we previously did for
the root table. This seems unnecessary since the partitioned tables
have no storage and are not scanned. We might want to go back and
rejigger things so that no partitioned tables (including the parent)
need !rte->inh RTEs, but that seems to require some adjustments not
related to the core purpose of this patch.
Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed by me and by Amit Langote. Some final
adjustments by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRd=1venqLL7oGU=C1dEkuvk2DJgvF+7uKbnPHaum1mvHQ@mail.gmail.com
David Rowley found that the "use the smallest per-column selectivity"
heuristic applied in some cases by get_foreign_key_join_selectivity()
was badly off if the FK columns are independent, producing estimates
much worse than we got before that code was added in 9.6.
One case where that heuristic was used was for LEFT and FULL outer joins
with the referenced rel on the outside of the join. But we should not
really need to special-case those here. eqjoinsel() never has had such a
special case; the correction is applied by calc_joinrel_size_estimate()
instead. Let's just estimate such cases like inner joins and rely on that
later adjustment. (I think there was something of a thinko here, in that
the comments seem to be thinking about the selectivity as defined for
semi/anti joins; but that shouldn't apply to left/full joins.) Add a
regression test exercising such a case to show that this is sane in
at least some cases.
The other case where we used that heuristic was for SEMI/ANTI outer joins,
either if the referenced rel was on the outside, or if it was on the inside
but was part of a join within the RHS. In either case, the FK doesn't give
us a lot of traction towards estimating the selectivity. To ensure that
we don't have regressions from what happened before 9.6, let's punt by
ignoring the FK in such cases and applying the traditional selectivity
calculation. (We might be able to improve on that later, but for now
I just want to be sure it's not worse than 9.5.)
Report and patch by David Rowley, simplified a bit by me. Back-patch
to 9.6 where this code was added.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f8NO8oCDcxrteohG6O72uU1saEVT9qX=R8pENr5QWerXw@mail.gmail.com
If the inner relation can be proven unique, that is it can have no more
than one matching row for any row of the outer query, then we might as
well implement the semijoin as a plain inner join, allowing substantially
more freedom to the planner. This is a form of outer join strength
reduction, but it can't be implemented in reduce_outer_joins() because
we don't have enough info about the individual relations at that stage.
Instead do it much like remove_useless_joins(): once we've built base
relations, we can make another pass over the SpecialJoinInfo list and
get rid of any entries representing reducible semijoins.
This is essentially a followon to the inner-unique patch (commit 9c7f5229a)
and makes use of the proof machinery that that patch created. We need only
minor refactoring of innerrel_is_unique's API to support this usage.
Per performance complaint from Teodor Sigaev.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f994fc98-389f-4a46-d1bc-c42e05cb43ed@sigaev.ru
The inner-unique patch (commit 9c7f5229a) supposed that if we're
considering a JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER join path, we can always set inner_unique
for the join, because the inner path produced by create_unique_path should
be unique relative to the outer relation. However, that's true only if
we're considering joining to the whole outer relation --- otherwise we may
be applying only some of the join quals, and so the inner path might be
non-unique from the perspective of this join. Adjust the test to only
believe that we can set inner_unique if we have the whole semijoin LHS on
the outer side.
There is more that can be done in this area, but this commit is only
intended to provide the minimal fix needed to get correct plans.
Per report from Teodor Sigaev. Thanks to David Rowley for preliminary
investigation.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f994fc98-389f-4a46-d1bc-c42e05cb43ed@sigaev.ru
If there can certainly be no more than one matching inner row for a given
outer row, then the executor can move on to the next outer row as soon as
it's found one match; there's no need to continue scanning the inner
relation for this outer row. This saves useless scanning in nestloop
and hash joins. In merge joins, it offers the opportunity to skip
mark/restore processing, because we know we have not advanced past the
first possible match for the next outer row.
Of course, the devil is in the details: the proof of uniqueness must
depend only on joinquals (not otherquals), and if we want to skip
mergejoin mark/restore then it must depend only on merge clauses.
To avoid adding more planning overhead than absolutely necessary,
the present patch errs in the conservative direction: there are cases
where inner_unique or skip_mark_restore processing could be used, but
it will not do so because it's not sure that the uniqueness proof
depended only on "safe" clauses. This could be improved later.
David Rowley, reviewed and rather heavily editorialized on by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqF6Sw-TK98bW48TdtFJ+3a7D2mFyZ7++=D-RyPsL76gw@mail.gmail.com
A proposed patch, also by Thomas and in the same thread, would change
the output order of these. Independent of the follow-up patches
getting committed, nailing down the order in these specific tests at
worst seems harmless.
Author: Thomas Munro
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=1D4-tP7j7UAgT_j4ZX2j4Ehe1qgZQWFKBMb8F76UW5Rg@mail.gmail.com
Given a three-or-more-way equivalence class, such as X.Y = Y.Y = Z.Z,
it was possible for the planner to omit one of the quals needed to
enforce that all members of the equivalence class are actually equal.
This only happened in the case of a parameterized join node for two
of the relations, that is a plan tree like
Nested Loop
-> Scan X
-> Nested Loop
-> Scan Y
-> Scan Z
Filter: Z.Z = X.X
The eclass machinery normally expects to apply X.X = Y.Y when those
two relations are joined, but in this shape of plan tree they aren't
joined until the top node --- and, if the lower nested loop is marked
as parameterized by X, the top node will assume that the relevant eclass
condition(s) got pushed down into the lower node. On the other hand,
the scan of Z assumes that it's only responsible for constraining Z.Z
to match any one of the other eclass members. So one or another of
the required quals sometimes fell between the cracks, depending on
whether consideration of the eclass in get_joinrel_parampathinfo()
for the lower nested loop chanced to generate X.X = Y.Y or X.X = Z.Z
as the appropriate constraint there. If it generated the latter,
it'd erroneously suppose that the Z scan would take care of matters.
To fix, force X.X = Y.Y to be generated and applied at that join node
when this case occurs.
This is *extremely* hard to hit in practice, because various planner
behaviors conspire to mask the problem; starting with the fact that the
planner doesn't really like to generate a parameterized plan of the
above shape. (It might have been impossible to hit it before we
tweaked things to allow this plan shape for star-schema cases.) Many
thanks to Alexander Kirkouski for submitting a reproducible test case.
The bug can be demonstrated in all branches back to 9.2 where parameterized
paths were introduced, so back-patch that far.
Given a left join containing a full join in its righthand side, with
the left join's joinclause referencing only one side of the full join
(in a non-strict fashion, so that the full join doesn't get simplified),
the planner could fail with "failed to build any N-way joins" or related
errors. This happened because the full join was seen as overlapping the
left join's RHS, and then recent changes within join_is_legal() caused
that function to conclude that the full join couldn't validly be formed.
Rather than try to rejigger join_is_legal() yet more to allow this,
I think it's better to fix initsplan.c so that the required join order
is explicit in the SpecialJoinInfo data structure. The previous coding
there essentially ignored full joins, relying on the fact that we don't
flatten them in the joinlist data structure to preserve their ordering.
That's sufficient to prevent a wrong plan from being formed, but as this
example shows, it's not sufficient to ensure that the right plan will
be formed. We need to work a bit harder to ensure that the right plan
looks sane according to the SpecialJoinInfos.
Per bug #14105 from Vojtech Rylko. This was apparently induced by
commit 8703059c6 (though now that I've seen it, I wonder whether there
are related cases that could have failed before that); so back-patch
to all active branches. Unfortunately, that patch also went into 9.0,
so this bug is a regression that won't be fixed in that branch.
If a GROUP BY clause includes all columns of a non-deferred primary key,
as well as other columns of the same relation, those other columns are
redundant and can be dropped from the grouping; the pkey is enough to
ensure that each row of the table corresponds to a separate group.
Getting rid of the excess columns will reduce the cost of the sorting or
hashing needed to implement GROUP BY, and can indeed remove the need for
a sort step altogether.
This seems worth testing for since many query authors are not aware of
the GROUP-BY-primary-key exception to the rule about queries not being
allowed to reference non-grouped-by columns in their targetlists or
HAVING clauses. Thus, redundant GROUP BY items are not uncommon. Also,
we can make the test pretty cheap in most queries where it won't help
by not looking up a rel's primary key until we've found that at least
two of its columns are in GROUP BY.
David Rowley, reviewed by Julien Rouhaud
Commit 45f6240a8f added an assumption in ExecHashIncreaseNumBatches
and ExecHashIncreaseNumBuckets that they could find all tuples in the main
hash table by iterating over the "dense storage" introduced by that patch.
However, ExecHashRemoveNextSkewBucket continued its old practice of simply
re-linking deleted skew tuples into the main table's hashchains. Hence,
such tuples got lost during any subsequent increase in nbatch or nbuckets,
and would never get joined, as reported in bug #13908 from Seth P.
I (tgl) think that the aforesaid commit has got multiple design issues
and should be reworked rather completely; but there is no time for that
right now, so band-aid the problem by making ExecHashRemoveNextSkewBucket
physically copy deleted skew tuples into the "dense storage" arena.
The added test case is able to exhibit the problem by means of fooling the
planner with a WHERE condition that it will underestimate the selectivity
of, causing the initial nbatch estimate to be too small.
Tomas Vondra and Tom Lane. Thanks to David Johnston for initial
investigation into the bug report.
More fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich exposed that the planner did not
cope well with chains of lateral references. If relation X references Y
laterally, and Y references Z laterally, then we will have to scan X on the
inside of a nestloop with Z, so for all intents and purposes X is laterally
dependent on Z too. The planner did not understand this and would generate
intermediate joins that could not be used. While that was usually harmless
except for wasting some planning cycles, under the right circumstances it
would lead to "failed to build any N-way joins" or "could not devise a
query plan" planner failures.
To fix that, convert the existing per-relation lateral_relids and
lateral_referencers relid sets into their transitive closures; that is,
they now show all relations on which a rel is directly or indirectly
laterally dependent. This not only fixes the chained-reference problem
but allows some of the relevant tests to be made substantially simpler
and faster, since they can be reduced to simple bitmap manipulations
instead of searches of the LateralJoinInfo list.
Also, when a PlaceHolderVar that is due to be evaluated at a join contains
lateral references, we should treat those references as indirect lateral
dependencies of each of the join's base relations. This prevents us from
trying to join any individual base relations to the lateral reference
source before the join is formed, which again cannot work.
Andreas' testing also exposed another oversight in the "dangerous
PlaceHolderVar" test added in commit 85e5e222b1. Simply rejecting
unsafe join paths in joinpath.c is insufficient, because in some cases
we will end up rejecting *all* possible paths for a particular join, again
leading to "could not devise a query plan" failures. The restriction has
to be known also to join_is_legal and its cohort functions, so that they
will not select a join for which that will happen. I chose to move the
supporting logic into joinrels.c where the latter functions are.
Back-patch to 9.3 where LATERAL support was introduced.
It was possible for the planner to decide to join a LATERAL subquery to
the outer side of an outer join before the outer join itself is completed.
Normally that's fine because of the associativity rules, but it doesn't
work if the subquery contains a lateral reference to the inner side of the
outer join. In such a situation the outer join *must* be done first.
join_is_legal() missed this consideration and would allow the join to be
attempted, but the actual path-building code correctly decided that no
valid join path could be made, sometimes leading to planner errors such as
"failed to build any N-way joins".
Per report from Andreas Seltenreich. Back-patch to 9.3 where LATERAL
support was added.
In commit 95f4e59c32 I added a regression test case that examined
the plan of a query on system catalogs. That isn't a terribly great idea
because the catalogs tend to change from version to version, or even
within a version if someone makes an unrelated regression-test change that
populates the catalogs a bit differently. Usually I try to make planner
test cases rely on test tables that have not changed since Berkeley days,
but I got sloppy in this case because the submitted crasher example queried
the catalogs and I didn't spend enough time on rewriting it. But it was a
problem waiting to happen, as I was rudely reminded when I tried to port
that patch into Salesforce's Postgres variant :-(. So spend a little more
effort and rewrite the query to not use any system catalogs. I verified
that this version still provokes the Assert if 95f4e59c32866716's code fix
is reverted.
I also removed the EXPLAIN output from the test, as it turns out that the
assertion occurs while considering a plan that isn't the one ultimately
selected anyway; so there's no value in risking any cross-platform
variation in that printout.
Back-patch to 9.2, like the previous patch.
One of the changes I made in commit 8703059c6b turns out not to have
been such a good idea: we still need the exception in join_is_legal() that
allows a join if both inputs already overlap the RHS of the special join
we're checking. Otherwise we can miss valid plans, and might indeed fail
to find a plan at all, as in recent report from Andreas Seltenreich.
That code was added way back in commit c17117649b, but I failed to
include a regression test case then; my bad. Put it back with a better
explanation, and a test this time. The logic does end up a bit different
than before though: I now believe it's appropriate to make this check
first, thereby allowing such a case whether or not we'd consider the
previous SJ(s) to commute with this one. (Presumably, we already decided
they did; but it was confusing to have this consideration in the middle
of the code that was handling the other case.)
Back-patch to all active branches, like the previous patch.
Until now we computed these Param ID sets at the end of subquery_planner,
but that approach depends on subquery_planner returning a concrete Plan
tree. We would like to switch over to returning one or more Paths for a
subquery, and in that representation the necessary details aren't fully
fleshed out (not to mention that we don't really want to do this work for
Paths that end up getting discarded). Hence, refactor so that we can
compute the param ID sets at the end of planning, just before
set_plan_references is run.
The main change necessary to make this work is that we need to capture
the set of outer-level Param IDs available to the current query level
before exiting subquery_planner, since the outer levels' plan_params lists
are transient. (That's not going to pose a problem for returning Paths,
since all the work involved in producing that data is part of expression
preprocessing, which will continue to happen before Paths are produced.)
On the plus side, this change gets rid of several existing kluges.
Eventually I'd like to get rid of SS_finalize_plan altogether in favor of
doing this work during set_plan_references, but that will require some
complex rejiggering because SS_finalize_plan needs to visit subplans and
initplans before the main plan. So leave that idea for another day.
Commit 85e5e222b1 turns out not to have taken
care of all cases of the partially-evaluatable-PlaceHolderVar problem found
by Andreas Seltenreich's fuzz testing. I had set it up to check for risky
PHVs only in the event that we were making a star-schema-based exception to
the param_source_rels join ordering heuristic. However, it turns out that
the problem can occur even in joins that satisfy the param_source_rels
heuristic, in which case allow_star_schema_join() isn't consulted.
Refactor so that we check for risky PHVs whenever the proposed join has
any remaining parameterization.
Back-patch to 9.2, like the previous patch (except for the regression test
case, which only works back to 9.3 because it uses LATERAL).
Note that this discovery implies that problems of this sort could've
occurred in 9.2 and up even before the star-schema patch; though I've not
tried to prove that experimentally.
A new test case from Andreas Seltenreich showed that we were still a bit
confused about removing PlaceHolderVars during join removal. Specifically,
remove_rel_from_query would remove a PHV that was used only underneath
the removable join, even if the place where it's used was the join partner
relation and not the join clause being deleted. This would lead to a
"too late to create a new PlaceHolderInfo" error later on. We can defend
against that by checking ph_eval_at to see if the PHV could possibly be
getting used at some partner rel.
Also improve some nearby LATERAL-related logic. I decided that the check
on ph_lateral needed to take precedence over the check on ph_needed, in
case there's a lateral reference underneath the join being considered.
(That may be impossible, but I'm not convinced of it, and it's easy enough
to defend against the case.) Also, I realized that remove_rel_from_query's
logic for updating LateralJoinInfos is dead code, because we don't build
those at all until after join removal.
Back-patch to 9.3. Previous versions didn't have the LATERAL issues, of
course, and they also didn't attempt to remove PlaceHolderInfos during join
removal. (I'm starting to wonder if changing that was really such a great
idea.)
Commit 9e7e29c75a introduced an Assert that
join removal didn't reduce the eval_at set of any PlaceHolderVar to empty.
At first glance it looks like join_is_removable ensures that's true --- but
actually, the loop in join_is_removable skips PlaceHolderVars that are not
referenced above the join due to be removed. So, if we don't want any
empty eval_at sets, the right thing to do is to delete any now-unreferenced
PlaceHolderVars from the data structure entirely.
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich. Back-patch to 9.3 where the
aforesaid Assert was added.
Further testing revealed that commit f69b4b9495 was still a few
bricks shy of a load: minor tweaking of the previous test cases resulted
in the same wrong-outer-join-order problem coming back. After study
I concluded that my previous changes in make_outerjoininfo() were just
accidentally masking the problem, and should be reverted in favor of
forcing syntactic join order whenever an upper outer join's predicate
doesn't mention a lower outer join's LHS. This still allows the
chained-outer-joins style that is the normally optimizable case.
I also tightened things up some more in join_is_legal(). It seems to me
on review that what's really happening in the exception case where we
ignore a mismatched special join is that we're allowing the proposed join
to associate into the RHS of the outer join we're comparing it to. As
such, we should *always* insist that the proposed join be a left join,
which eliminates a bunch of rather dubious argumentation. The case where
we weren't enforcing that was the one that was already known buggy anyway
(it had a violatable Assert before the aforesaid commit) so it hardly
deserves a lot of deference.
Back-patch to all active branches, like the previous patch. The added
regression test case failed in all branches back to 9.1, and I think it's
only an unrelated change in costing calculations that kept 9.0 from
choosing a broken plan.
In commit b514a7460d, I changed the planner
so that it would allow nestloop paths to remain partially parameterized,
ie the inner relation might need parameters from both the current outer
relation and some upper-level outer relation. That's fine so long as we're
talking about distinct parameters; but the patch also allowed creation of
nestloop paths for cases where the inner relation's parameter was a
PlaceHolderVar whose eval_at set included the current outer relation and
some upper-level one. That does *not* work.
In principle we could allow such a PlaceHolderVar to be evaluated at the
lower join node using values passed down from the upper relation along with
values from the join's own outer relation. However, nodeNestloop.c only
supports simple Vars not arbitrary expressions as nestloop parameters.
createplan.c is also a few bricks shy of being able to handle such cases;
it misplaces the PlaceHolderVar parameters in the plan tree, which is why
the visible symptoms of this bug are "plan should not reference subplan's
variable" and "failed to assign all NestLoopParams to plan nodes" planner
errors.
Adding the necessary complexity to make this work doesn't seem like it
would be repaid in significantly better plans, because in cases where such
a PHV exists, there is probably a corresponding join order constraint that
would allow a good plan to be found without using the star-schema exception.
Furthermore, adding complexity to nodeNestloop.c would create a run-time
penalty even for plans where this whole consideration is irrelevant.
So let's just reject such paths instead.
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich; the added regression test is based
on his example query. Back-patch to 9.2, like the previous patch.
An outer join clause that didn't actually reference the RHS (perhaps only
after constant-folding) could confuse the join order enforcement logic,
leading to wrong query results. Also, nested occurrences of such things
could trigger an Assertion that on reflection seems incorrect.
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich. The practical use of such cases
seems thin enough that it's not too surprising we've not heard field
reports about it.
This has been broken for a long time, so back-patch to all active branches.
In many cases, we can implement a semijoin as a plain innerjoin by first
passing the righthand-side relation through a unique-ification step.
However, one of the cases where this does NOT work is where the RHS has
a LATERAL reference to the LHS; that makes the RHS dependent on the LHS
so that unique-ification is meaningless. joinpath.c understood this,
and so would not generate any join paths of this kind ... but join_is_legal
neglected to check for the case, so it would think that we could do it.
The upshot would be a "could not devise a query plan for the given query"
failure once we had failed to generate any join paths at all for the bogus
join pair.
Back-patch to 9.3 where LATERAL was added.
join_clause_is_movable_into() is approximate, in the sense that it might
sometimes return "false" when actually it would be valid to push the given
join clause down to the specified level. This is okay ... but there was
an Assert in get_joinrel_parampathinfo() that's only safe if the answers
are always exact. Comment out the Assert, and add a bunch of commentary
to clarify what's going on.
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich. The added regression test is
a pretty silly query, but it's based on his crasher example.
Back-patch to 9.2 where the faulty logic was introduced.
I missed a restriction that commit f4abd0241d
should have enforced: we can't pull up an empty-FROM subquery if it's under
an outer join, because then we'd need to wrap its output columns in
PlaceHolderVars. As the code currently stands, the PHVs end up with empty
relid sets, which doesn't work (and is correctly caught by an Assert).
It's possible that this could be fixed by assigning the PHVs the relid
sets of the parent FromExpr/JoinExpr, but getting that to work is more
complication than I care to add right now; indeed it's likely that
we'll never bother, since pulling up empty-FROM subqueries is a rather
marginal optimization anyway.
Per report from Andreas Seltenreich. Back-patch to 9.5 where the faulty
code was added.
The planner generally expects that the estimated rowcount of any relation
is at least one row, *unless* it has been proven empty by constraint
exclusion or similar mechanisms, which is marked by installing a dummy path
as the rel's cheapest path (cf. IS_DUMMY_REL). When I split up
allpaths.c's processing of base rels into separate set_base_rel_sizes and
set_base_rel_pathlists steps, the intention was that dummy rels would get
marked as such during the "set size" step; this is what justifies an Assert
in indxpath.c's get_loop_count that other relations should either be dummy
or have positive rowcount. Unfortunately I didn't get that quite right
for append relations: if all the child rels have been proven empty then
set_append_rel_size would come up with a rowcount of zero, which is
correct, but it didn't then do set_dummy_rel_pathlist. (We would have
ended up with the right state after set_append_rel_pathlist, but that's
too late, if we generate indexpaths for some other rel first.)
In addition to fixing the actual bug, I installed an Assert enforcing this
convention in set_rel_size; that then allows simplification of a couple
of now-redundant tests for zero rowcount in set_append_rel_size.
Also, to cover the possibility that third-party FDWs have been careless
about not returning a zero rowcount estimate, apply clamp_row_est to
whatever an FDW comes up with as the rows estimate.
Per report from Andreas Seltenreich. Back-patch to 9.2. Earlier branches
did not have the separation between set_base_rel_sizes and
set_base_rel_pathlists steps, so there was no intermediate state where an
appendrel would have had inconsistent rowcount and pathlist. It's possible
that adding the Assert to set_rel_size would be a good idea in older
branches too; but since they're not under development any more, it's likely
not worth the trouble.
An outer join appearing within the RHS of an antijoin can't commute with
the antijoin, but somehow I missed teaching make_outerjoininfo() about
that. In Teodor Sigaev's recent trouble report, this manifests as a
"could not find RelOptInfo for given relids" error within eqjoinsel();
but I think silently wrong query results are possible too, if the planner
misorders the joins and doesn't happen to trigger any internal consistency
checks. It's broken as far back as we had antijoins, so back-patch to all
supported branches.
Previously we would re-use input subexpressions in all expression trees
attached to a Join plan node. However, if it's an outer join and the
subexpression appears in the nullable-side input, this is potentially
incorrect for apparently-matching subexpressions that came from above
the outer join (ie, targetlist and qpqual expressions), because the
executor will treat the subexpression value as NULL when maybe it should
not be.
The case is fairly hard to hit because (a) you need a non-strict
subexpression (else NULL is correct), and (b) we don't usually compute
expressions in the outputs of non-toplevel plan nodes. But we might do
so if the expressions are sort keys for a mergejoin, for example.
Probably in the long run we should make a more explicit distinction between
Vars appearing above and below an outer join, but that will be a major
planner redesign and not at all back-patchable. For the moment, just hack
set_join_references so that it will not match any non-Var expressions
coming from nullable inputs to expressions that came from above the join.
(This is somewhat overkill, in that a strict expression could still be
matched, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to check that.)
Per report from Qingqing Zhou. The added regression test case is based
on his example.
This has been broken for a very long time, so back-patch to all active
branches.
We can't handle this in the general case due to limitations of the
planner's data representations; but we can allow it in many useful cases,
by being careful to flatten only when we are pulling a single-row subquery
up into a FROM (or, equivalently, inner JOIN) node that will still have at
least one remaining relation child. Per discussion of an example from
Kyotaro Horiguchi.
While poking at David Kubečka's issue I noticed an ancient logic error
in get_loop_count(): it used 1.0 as a "no data yet" indicator, but since
that is actually a valid rowcount estimate, this doesn't work. If we
have one input relation with 1.0 as rowcount and then another one with
a larger rowcount, we should use 1.0 as the result, but we picked the
larger rowcount instead. (I think when I coded this, I recognized the
conflict, but mistakenly thought that the logic would pick the desired
count anyway.)
Fixing this changed the plan for one existing regression test case.
Since the point of that test is to exercise creation of a particular
shape of nestloop plan, I tweaked the query a little bit so it still
results in the same plan choice.
This is definitely a bug, but I'm hesitant to back-patch since it might
change plan choices unexpectedly, and anyway failure to implement a
heuristic precisely as intended is a pretty low-grade bug.
Error messages informing the user that no such column exists can
sometimes provoke a perplexed response. This often happens due to
a subtle typo in the column name or, perhaps less likely, in the
alias name. To speed discovery of what the real issue is in such
cases, we'll now search the range table for approximate matches.
If there are one or two such matches that are good enough to think
that they might be what the user intended to type, and better than
all other approximate matches, we'll issue a hint suggesting that
the user might have intended to reference those columns.
Peter Geoghegan and Robert Haas
Part of the intent of the parameterized-path mechanism was to handle
star-schema queries efficiently, but some overly-restrictive search
limiting logic added in commit e2fa76d80b
prevented such cases from working as desired. Fix that and add a
regression test about it. Per gripe from Marc Cousin.
This is arguably a bug rather than a new feature, so back-patch to 9.2
where parameterized paths were introduced.
The code I added in commit f343a880d5 was
careless about preserving AND/OR flatness: it could create a structure with
an OR node directly underneath another one. That breaks an assumption
that's fairly important for planning efficiency, not to mention triggering
various Asserts (as reported by Benjamin Smith). Add a trifle more logic
to handle the case properly.
We can remove a left join to a relation if the relation's output is
provably distinct for the columns involved in the join clause (considering
only equijoin clauses) and the relation supplies no variables needed above
the join. Previously, the join removal logic could only prove distinctness
by reference to unique indexes of a table. This patch extends the logic
to consider subquery relations, wherein distinctness might be proven by
reference to GROUP BY, DISTINCT, etc.
We actually already had some code to check that a subquery's output was
provably distinct, but it was hidden inside pathnode.c; which was a pretty
bad place for it really, since that file is mostly boilerplate Path
construction and comparison. Move that code to analyzejoins.c, which is
arguably a more appropriate location, and is certainly the site of the
new usage for it.
David Rowley, reviewed by Simon Riggs
Although this bug is already fixed in post-9.2 branches, the case
triggering it is quite different from what was under consideration
at the time. It seems worth memorializing this example in HEAD
just to make sure it doesn't get broken again in future.
Extracted from commit 187ae17300.
This reverts commit ee1e5662d8, as well as
a remarkably large number of followup commits, which were mostly concerned
with the fact that the implementation didn't work terribly well. It still
doesn't: we probably need some rather basic work in the GUC infrastructure
if we want to fully support GUCs whose default varies depending on the
value of another GUC. Meanwhile, it also emerged that there wasn't really
consensus in favor of the definition the patch tried to implement (ie,
effective_cache_size should default to 4 times shared_buffers). So whack
it all back to where it was. In a followup commit, I'll do what was
recently agreed to, which is to simply change the default to a higher
value.
When pulling a "postponed" qual from a LATERAL subquery up into the quals
of an outer join, we must make sure that the postponed qual is included
in those seen by make_outerjoininfo(). Otherwise we might compute a
too-small min_lefthand or min_righthand for the outer join, leading to
"JOIN qualification cannot refer to other relations" failures from
distribute_qual_to_rels. Subtler errors in the created plan seem possible,
too, if the extra qual would only affect join ordering constraints.
Per bug #9041 from David Leverton. Back-patch to 9.3.
On second thought, commit 0c051c9008 was
over-hasty: rather than allowing this case, we ought to reject it for now.
That leaves the field clear for a future feature that allows the target
table to be re-specified in the FROM (or USING) clause, which will enable
left-joining the target table to something else. We can then also allow
LATERAL references to such an explicitly re-specified target table.
But allowing them right now will create ambiguities or worse for such a
feature, and it isn't something we documented 9.3 as supporting.
While at it, add a convenience subroutine to avoid having several copies
of the ereport for disalllowed-LATERAL-reference cases.
I failed to think much about UPDATE/DELETE when implementing LATERAL :-(.
The implemented behavior ended up being that subqueries in the FROM or
USING clause (respectively) could access the update/delete target table as
though it were a lateral reference; which seems fine if they said LATERAL,
but certainly ought to draw an error if they didn't. Fix it so you get a
suitable error when you omit LATERAL. Per report from Emre Hasegeli.
It's possible to extract a restriction OR clause from a join clause that
has the form of an OR-of-ANDs, if each sub-AND includes a clause that
mentions only one specific relation. While PG has been aware of that idea
for many years, the code previously only did it if it could extract an
indexable OR clause. On reflection, though, that seems a silly limitation:
adding a restriction clause can be a win by reducing the number of rows
that have to be filtered at the join step, even if we have to test the
clause as a plain filter clause during the scan. This should be especially
useful for foreign tables, where the change can cut the number of rows that
have to be retrieved from the foreign server; but testing shows it can win
even on local tables. Per a suggestion from Robert Haas.
As a heuristic, I made the code accept an extracted restriction clause
if its estimated selectivity is less than 0.9, which will probably result
in accepting extracted clauses just about always. We might need to tweak
that later based on experience.
Since the code no longer has even a weak connection to Path creation,
remove orindxpath.c and create a new file optimizer/util/orclauses.c.
There's some additional janitorial cleanup of now-dead code that needs
to happen, but it seems like that's a fit subject for a separate commit.
Make the COPY test, which loads most of the large static tables used in
the tests, also explicitly ANALYZE those tables. This allows us to get
rid of various ad-hoc, and rather redundant, ANALYZE commands that had
gotten stuck into various test scripts over time to ensure we got
consistent plan choices. (We could have done a database-wide ANALYZE,
but that would cause stats to get attached to the small static tables
too, which results in plan changes compared to the historical behavior.
I'm not sure that's a good idea, so not going that far for now.)
Back-patch to 9.0, since 9.0 and 9.1 are currently sometimes failing
regression tests for lack of an "ANALYZE tenk1" in the subselect test.
There's no need for this in 8.4 since we didn't print any plans back
then.
pullup_replace_vars()'s decisions about whether a pulled-up replacement
expression needs to be wrapped in a PlaceHolderVar depend on the assumption
that what looks like a Var behaves like a Var. However, if the Var is a
join alias reference, later flattening of join aliases might replace the
Var with something that's not a Var at all, and should have been wrapped.
To fix, do a forcible pass of flatten_join_alias_vars() on the subquery
targetlist before we start to copy items out of it. We'll re-run that
processing on the pulled-up expressions later, but that's harmless.
Per report from Ken Tanzer; the added regression test case is based on his
example. This bug has been there since the PlaceHolderVar mechanism was
invented, but has escaped detection because the circumstances that trigger
it are fairly narrow. You need a flattenable query underneath an outer
join, which contains another flattenable query inside a join of its own,
with a dangerous expression (a constant or something else non-strict)
in that one's targetlist.
Having seen this, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be prudent to do all
alias-variable flattening earlier, perhaps even in the rewriter.
But that would probably not be a back-patchable change.
Bug #8591 from Claudio Freire demonstrates that get_eclass_for_sort_expr
must be able to compute valid em_nullable_relids for any new equivalence
class members it creates. I'd worried about this in the commit message
for db9f0e1d9a, but claimed that it wasn't a
problem because multi-member ECs should already exist when it runs. That
is transparently wrong, though, because this function is also called by
initialize_mergeclause_eclasses, which runs during deconstruct_jointree.
The example given in the bug report (which the new regression test item
is based upon) fails because the COALESCE() expression is first seen by
initialize_mergeclause_eclasses rather than process_equivalence.
Fixing this requires passing the appropriate nullable_relids set to
get_eclass_for_sort_expr, and it requires new code to compute that set
for top-level expressions such as ORDER BY, GROUP BY, etc. We store
the top-level nullable_relids in a new field in PlannerInfo to avoid
computing it many times. In the back branches, I've added the new
field at the end of the struct to minimize ABI breakage for planner
plugins. There doesn't seem to be a good alternative to changing
get_eclass_for_sort_expr's API signature, though. There probably aren't
any third-party extensions calling that function directly; moreover,
if there are, they probably need to think about what to pass for
nullable_relids anyway.
Back-patch to 9.2, like the previous patch in this area.
Although the SQL spec forbids duplicate table aliases, historically
we've allowed queries like
SELECT ... FROM tab1 x CROSS JOIN (tab2 x CROSS JOIN tab3 y) z
on the grounds that the aliased join (z) hides the aliases within it,
therefore there is no conflict between the two RTEs named "x". The
LATERAL patch broke this, on the misguided basis that "x" could be
ambiguous if tab3 were a LATERAL subquery. To avoid breaking existing
queries, it's better to allow this situation and complain only if
tab3 actually does contain an ambiguous reference. We need only remove
the check that was throwing an error, because the column lookup code
is already prepared to handle ambiguous references. Per bug #8444.
In an example such as
SELECT * FROM
i LEFT JOIN LATERAL (SELECT * FROM j WHERE i.n = j.n) j ON true;
it is safe to pull up the LATERAL subquery into its parent, but we must
then treat the "i.n = j.n" clause as a qual clause of the LEFT JOIN. The
previous coding in deconstruct_recurse mistakenly labeled the clause as
"is_pushed_down", resulting in wrong semantics if the clause were applied
at the join node, as per an example submitted awhile ago by Jeremy Evans.
To fix, postpone processing of such clauses until we return back up to
the appropriate recursion depth in deconstruct_recurse.
In addition, tighten the is-safe-to-pull-up checks in is_simple_subquery;
we previously missed the possibility that the LATERAL subquery might itself
contain an outer join that makes lateral references in lower quals unsafe.
A regression test case equivalent to Jeremy's example was already in my
commit of yesterday, but was giving the wrong results because of this
bug. This patch fixes the expected output for that, and also adds a
test case for the second problem.
The planner largely failed to consider the possibility that a
PlaceHolderVar's expression might contain a lateral reference to a Var
coming from somewhere outside the PHV's syntactic scope. We had a previous
report of a problem in this area, which I tried to fix in a quick-hack way
in commit 4da6439bd8, but Antonin Houska
pointed out that there were still some problems, and investigation turned
up other issues. This patch largely reverts that commit in favor of a more
thoroughly thought-through solution. The new theory is that a PHV's
ph_eval_at level cannot be higher than its original syntactic level. If it
contains lateral references, those don't change the ph_eval_at level, but
rather they create a lateral-reference requirement for the ph_eval_at join
relation. The code in joinpath.c needs to handle that.
Another issue is that createplan.c wasn't handling nested PlaceHolderVars
properly.
In passing, push knowledge of lateral-reference checks for join clauses
into join_clause_is_movable_to. This is mainly so that FDWs don't need
to deal with it.
This patch doesn't fix the original join-qual-placement problem reported by
Jeremy Evans (and indeed, one of the new regression test cases shows the
wrong answer because of that). But the PlaceHolderVar problems need to be
fixed before that issue can be addressed, so committing this separately
seems reasonable.
The planner logic that attempted to make a preliminary estimate of the
ph_needed levels for PlaceHolderVars seems to be completely broken by
lateral references. Fortunately, the potential join order optimization
that this code supported seems to be of relatively little value in
practice; so let's just get rid of it rather than trying to fix it.
Getting rid of this allows fairly substantial simplifications in
placeholder.c, too, so planning in such cases should be a bit faster.
Issue noted while pursuing bugs reported by Jeremy Evans and Antonin
Houska, though this doesn't in itself fix either of their reported cases.
What this does do is prevent an Assert crash in the kind of query
illustrated by the added regression test. (I'm not sure that the plan for
that query is stable enough across platforms to be usable as a regression
test output ... but we'll soon find out from the buildfarm.)
Back-patch to 9.3. The problem case can't arise without LATERAL, so
no need to touch older branches.
This patch gets rid of the concept of, and infrastructure for,
non-canonical PathKeys; we now only ever create canonical pathkey lists.
The need for non-canonical pathkeys came from the desire to have
grouping_planner initialize query_pathkeys and related pathkey lists before
calling query_planner. However, since query_planner didn't actually *do*
anything with those lists before they'd been made canonical, we can get rid
of the whole mess by just not creating the lists at all until the point
where we formerly canonicalized them.
There are several ways in which we could implement that without making
query_planner itself deal with grouping/sorting features (which are
supposed to be the province of grouping_planner). I chose to add a
callback function to query_planner's API; other alternatives would have
required adding more fields to PlannerInfo, which while not bad in itself
would create an ABI break for planner-related plugins in the 9.2 release
series. This still breaks ABI for anything that calls query_planner
directly, but it seems somewhat unlikely that there are any such plugins.
I had originally conceived of this change as merely a step on the way to
fixing bug #8049 from Teun Hoogendoorn; but it turns out that this fixes
that bug all by itself, as per the added regression test. The reason is
that now get_eclass_for_sort_expr is adding the ORDER BY expression at the
end of EquivalenceClass creation not the start, and so anything that is in
a multi-member EquivalenceClass has already been created with correct
em_nullable_relids. I am suspicious that there are related scenarios in
which we still need to teach get_eclass_for_sort_expr to compute correct
nullable_relids, but am not eager to risk destabilizing either 9.2 or 9.3
to fix bugs that are only hypothetical. So for the moment, do this and
stop here.
Back-patch to 9.2 but not to earlier branches, since they don't exhibit
this bug for lack of join-clause-movement logic that depends on
em_nullable_relids being correct. (We might have to revisit that choice
if any related bugs turn up.) In 9.2, don't change the signature of
make_pathkeys_for_sortclauses nor remove canonicalize_pathkeys, so as
not to risk more plugin breakage than we have to.
The SQL standard does not have general functions-in-FROM, but it does
allow UNNEST() there (see the <collection derived table> production),
and the semantics of that are defined to include lateral references.
So spec compliance requires allowing lateral references within UNNEST()
even without an explicit LATERAL keyword. Rather than making UNNEST()
a special case, it seems best to extend this flexibility to any
function-in-FROM. We'll still allow LATERAL to be written explicitly
for clarity's sake, but it's now a noise word in this context.
In theory this change could result in a change in behavior of existing
queries, by allowing what had been an outer reference in a function-in-FROM
to be captured by an earlier FROM-item at the same level. However, all
pre-9.3 PG releases have a bug that causes them to match variable
references to earlier FROM-items in preference to outer references (and
then throw an error). So no previously-working query could contain the
type of ambiguity that would risk a change of behavior.
Per a suggestion from Andrew Gierth, though I didn't use his patch.
If a potential equivalence clause references a variable from the nullable
side of an outer join, the planner needs to take care that derived clauses
are not pushed to below the outer join; else they may use the wrong value
for the variable. (The problem arises only with non-strict clauses, since
if an upper clause can be proven strict then the outer join will get
simplified to a plain join.) The planner attempted to prevent this type
of error by checking that potential equivalence clauses aren't
outerjoin-delayed as a whole, but actually we have to check each side
separately, since the two sides of the clause will get moved around
separately if it's treated as an equivalence. Bugs of this type can be
demonstrated as far back as 7.4, even though releases before 8.3 had only
a very ad-hoc notion of equivalence clauses.
In addition, we neglected to account for the possibility that such clauses
might have nonempty nullable_relids even when not outerjoin-delayed; so the
equivalence-class machinery lacked logic to compute correct nullable_relids
values for clauses it constructs. This oversight was harmless before 9.2
because we were only using RestrictInfo.nullable_relids for OR clauses;
but as of 9.2 it could result in pushing constructed equivalence clauses
to incorrect places. (This accounts for bug #7604 from Bill MacArthur.)
Fix the first problem by adding a new test check_equivalence_delay() in
distribute_qual_to_rels, and fix the second one by adding code in
equivclass.c and called functions to set correct nullable_relids for
generated clauses. Although I believe the second part of this is not
currently necessary before 9.2, I chose to back-patch it anyway, partly to
keep the logic similar across branches and partly because it seems possible
we might find other reasons why we need valid values of nullable_relids in
the older branches.
Add regression tests illustrating these problems. In 9.0 and up, also
add test cases checking that we can push constants through outer joins,
since we've broken that optimization before and I nearly broke it again
with an overly simplistic patch for this problem.
Some experimentation with examples similar to bug #7539 has convinced me
that indxpath.c's original implementation of parameterized-path generation
was several bricks shy of a load. In general, if we are relying on a
particular outer rel or set of outer rels for a parameterized path, the
path should use every indexable join clause that's available from that rel
or rels. Any join clauses that get left out of the indexqual will end up
getting applied as plain filter quals (qpquals), and that's generally a
significant loser compared to having the index AM enforce them. (This is
particularly true with btree, which can skip the index scan entirely if
it can see that the given indexquals are mutually contradictory.) The
original heuristics failed to ensure this, though, and were overly
complicated anyway. Rewrite to make the code explicitly identify each
useful set of outer rels and then select all applicable join clauses for
each one. The one plan that changes in the regression tests is in fact
for the better according to the planner's cost estimates.
(Note: this is not a correctness issue but just a matter of plan quality.
I don't yet know what is going on in bug #7539, but I don't expect this
change to fix that.)
We can detect whether the planner top level is going to care at all about
cheap startup cost (it will only do so if query_planner's tuple_fraction
argument is greater than zero). If it isn't, we might as well discard
paths immediately whose only advantage over others is cheap startup cost.
This turns out to get rid of quite a lot of paths in complex queries ---
I saw planner runtime reduction of more than a third on one large query.
Since add_path isn't currently passed the PlannerInfo "root", the easiest
way to tell it whether to do this was to add a bool flag to RelOptInfo.
That's a bit redundant, since all relations in a given query level will
have the same setting. But in the future it's possible that we'd refine
the control decision to work on a per-relation basis, so this seems like
a good arrangement anyway.
Per my suggestion of a few months ago.
If a PlaceHolderVar contains a pulled-up LATERAL reference, its minimum
possible evaluation level might be higher in the join tree than its
original syntactic location. That in turn affects the ph_needed level for
any contained PlaceHolderVars (that is, those PHVs had better propagate up
the join tree at least to the evaluation level of the outer PHV). We got
this mostly right, but mark_placeholder_maybe_needed() failed to account
for the effect, and in consequence could leave the inner PHVs with
ph_may_need less than what their ultimate ph_needed value will be. That's
bad because it could lead to failure to select a join order that will allow
evaluation of the inner PHV at a valid location. Fix that, and add an
Assert that checks that we don't ever set ph_needed to more than
ph_may_need.
This patch takes care of a number of problems having to do with failure
to choose valid join orders and incorrect handling of lateral references
pulled up from subqueries. Notable changes:
* Add a LateralJoinInfo data structure similar to SpecialJoinInfo, to
represent join ordering constraints created by lateral references.
(I first considered extending the SpecialJoinInfo structure, but the
semantics are different enough that a separate data structure seems
better.) Extend join_is_legal() and related functions to prevent trying
to form unworkable joins, and to ensure that we will consider joins that
satisfy lateral references even if the joins would be clauseless.
* Fill in the infrastructure needed for the last few types of relation scan
paths to support parameterization. We'd have wanted this eventually
anyway, but it is necessary now because a relation that gets pulled up out
of a UNION ALL subquery may acquire a reltargetlist containing lateral
references, meaning that its paths *have* to be parameterized whether or
not we have any code that can push join quals down into the scan.
* Compute data about lateral references early in query_planner(), and save
in RelOptInfo nodes, to avoid repetitive calculations later.
* Assorted corner-case bug fixes.
There's probably still some bugs left, but this is a lot closer to being
real than it was before.
Formerly, subquery pullup had no need to examine other entries in the range
table, since they could not contain any references to the subquery being
pulled up. That's no longer true with LATERAL, so now we need to be able
to visit rangetable subexpressions to replace Vars referencing the
pulled-up subquery. Also, this means that extract_lateral_references must
be unsurprised at encountering lateral PlaceHolderVars, since such might be
created when pulling up a subquery that's underneath an outer join with
respect to the lateral reference.
Re-allow subquery pullup for LATERAL subqueries, except when the subquery
is below an outer join and contains lateral references to relations outside
that outer join. If we pull up in such a case, we risk introducing lateral
cross-references into outer joins' ON quals, which is something the code is
entirely unprepared to cope with right now; and I'm not sure it'll ever be
worth coping with.
Support lateral refs in VALUES (this seems to be the only additional path
type that needs such support as a consequence of re-allowing subquery
pullup).
Put in a slightly hacky fix for joinpath.c's refusal to consider
parameterized join paths even when there cannot be any unparameterized
ones. This was causing "could not devise a query plan for the given query"
failures in queries involving more than two FROM items.
Put in an even more hacky fix for distribute_qual_to_rels() being unhappy
with join quals that contain references to rels outside their syntactic
scope; which is to say, disable that test altogether. Need to think about
how to preserve some sort of debugging cross-check here, while not
expending more cycles than befits a debugging cross-check.
The LATERAL marking has to be propagated down to the UNION leaf queries
when we pull them up. Also, fix the formerly stubbed-off
set_append_rel_pathlist(). It does already have enough smarts to cope with
making a parameterized Append path at need; it just has to not assume that
there *must* be an unparameterized path.
This patch implements the standard syntax of LATERAL attached to a
sub-SELECT in FROM, and also allows LATERAL attached to a function in FROM,
since set-returning function calls are expected to be one of the principal
use-cases.
The main change here is a rewrite of the mechanism for keeping track of
which relations are visible for column references while the FROM clause is
being scanned. The parser "namespace" lists are no longer lists of bare
RTEs, but are lists of ParseNamespaceItem structs, which carry an RTE
pointer as well as some visibility-controlling flags. Aside from
supporting LATERAL correctly, this lets us get rid of the ancient hacks
that required rechecking subqueries and JOIN/ON and function-in-FROM
expressions for invalid references after they were initially parsed.
Invalid column references are now always correctly detected on sight.
In passing, remove assorted parser error checks that are now dead code by
virtue of our having gotten rid of add_missing_from, as well as some
comments that are obsolete for the same reason. (It was mainly
add_missing_from that caused so much fudging here in the first place.)
The planner support for this feature is very minimal, and will be improved
in future patches. It works well enough for testing purposes, though.
catversion bump forced due to new field in RangeTblEntry.
This patch adjusts the treatment of parameterized paths so that all paths
with the same parameterization (same set of required outer rels) for the
same relation will have the same rowcount estimate. We cache the rowcount
estimates to ensure that property, and hopefully save a few cycles too.
Doing this makes it practical for add_path_precheck to operate without
a rowcount estimate: it need only assume that paths with different
parameterizations never dominate each other, which is close enough to
true anyway for coarse filtering, because normally a more-parameterized
path should yield fewer rows thanks to having more join clauses to apply.
In add_path, we do the full nine yards of comparing rowcount estimates
along with everything else, so that we can discard parameterized paths that
don't actually have an advantage. This fixes some issues I'd found with
add_path rejecting parameterized paths on the grounds that they were more
expensive than not-parameterized ones, even though they yielded many fewer
rows and hence would be cheaper once subsequent joining was considered.
To make the same-rowcounts assumption valid, we have to require that any
parameterized path enforce *all* join clauses that could be obtained from
the particular set of outer rels, even if not all of them are useful for
indexing. This is required at both base scans and joins. It's a good
thing anyway since the net impact is that join quals are checked at the
lowest practical level in the join tree. Hence, discard the original
rather ad-hoc mechanism for choosing parameterization joinquals, and build
a better one that has a more principled rule for when clauses can be moved.
The original rule was actually buggy anyway for lack of knowledge about
which relations are part of an outer join's outer side; getting this right
requires adding an outer_relids field to RestrictInfo.
We should be willing to cross-join two small relations if that allows us
to use an inner indexscan on a large relation (that is, the potential
indexqual for the large table requires both smaller relations). This
worked in simple cases but fell apart as soon as there was a join clause
to a fourth relation, because the existence of any two-relation join clause
caused the planner to not consider clauseless joins between other base
relations. The added regression test shows an example case adapted from
a recent complaint from Benoit Delbosc.
Adjust have_relevant_joinclause, have_relevant_eclass_joinclause, and
has_relevant_eclass_joinclause to consider that a join clause mentioning
three or more relations is sufficient grounds for joining any subset of
those relations, even if we have to do so via a cartesian join. Since such
clauses are relatively uncommon, this shouldn't affect planning speed on
typical queries; in fact it should help a bit, because the latter two
functions in particular get significantly simpler.
Although this is arguably a bug fix, I'm not going to risk back-patching
it, since it might have currently-unforeseen consequences.
For some reason, in the original coding of the PlaceHolderVar mechanism
I had supposed that PlaceHolderVars couldn't propagate into subqueries.
That is of course entirely possible. When it happens, we need to treat
an outer-level PlaceHolderVar much like an outer Var or Aggref, that is
SS_replace_correlation_vars() needs to replace the PlaceHolderVar with
a Param, and then when building the finished SubPlan we have to provide
the PlaceHolderVar expression as an actual parameter for the SubPlan.
The handling of the contained expression is a bit delicate but it can be
treated exactly like an Aggref's expression.
In addition to the missing logic in subselect.c, prepjointree.c was failing
to search subqueries for PlaceHolderVars that need their relids adjusted
during subquery pullup. It looks like everyplace else that touches
PlaceHolderVars got it right, though.
Per report from Mark Murawski. In 9.1 and HEAD, queries affected by this
oversight would fail with "ERROR: Upper-level PlaceHolderVar found where
not expected". But in 9.0 and 8.4, you'd silently get possibly-wrong
answers, since the value transmitted into the subquery wouldn't go to null
when it should.
If we use a PlaceHolderVar from the outer relation in an inner indexscan,
we need to reference the PlaceHolderVar as such as the value to be passed
in from the outer relation. The previous code effectively tried to
reconstruct the PHV from its component expression, which doesn't work since
(a) the Vars therein aren't necessarily bubbled up far enough, and (b) it
would be the wrong semantics anyway because of the possibility that the PHV
is supposed to have gone to null at some point before the current join.
Point (a) led to "variable not found in subplan target list" planner
errors, but point (b) would have led to silently wrong answers.
Per report from Roger Niederland.
A PlaceHolderVar's expression might contain another, lower-level
PlaceHolderVar. If the outer PlaceHolderVar is used, the inner one
certainly will be also, and so we have to make sure that both of them get
into the placeholder_list with correct ph_may_need values during the
initial pre-scan of the query (before deconstruct_jointree starts).
We did this correctly for PlaceHolderVars appearing in the query quals,
but overlooked the issue for those appearing in the top-level targetlist;
with the result that nested placeholders referenced only in the targetlist
did not work correctly, as illustrated in bug #6154.
While at it, add some error checking to find_placeholder_info to ensure
that we don't try to create new placeholders after it's too late to do so;
they have to all be created before deconstruct_jointree starts.
Back-patch to 8.4 where the PlaceHolderVar mechanism was introduced.
The point of a PlaceHolderVar is to allow a non-strict expression to be
evaluated below an outer join, after which its value bubbles up like a Var
and can be forced to NULL when the outer join's semantics require that.
However, there was a serious design oversight in that, namely that we
didn't ensure that there was actually a correct place in the plan tree
to evaluate the placeholder :-(. It may be necessary to delay evaluation
of an outer join to ensure that a placeholder that should be evaluated
below the join can be evaluated there. Per recent bug report from Kirill
Simonov.
Back-patch to 8.4 where the PlaceHolderVar mechanism was introduced.
The previous coding would decide that join removal was unsafe upon finding
a PlaceHolderVar that needed to be evaluated at the inner rel and then used
above the join. However, this fails to cover the case of PlaceHolderVars
that refer to both the inner rel and some other rels. Per bug report from
Andrus.
In these cases a qual can get marked with the removable rel in its
required_relids, but this is just to schedule its evaluation correctly, not
because it really depends on the rel. We were assuming that, in effect,
we could throw away *all* quals so marked, which is nonsense. Tighten up
the logic to be a little more paranoid about which quals belong to the
outer join being considered for removal, and arrange for all quals that
don't belong to be updated so they will still get evaluated correctly.
Also fix another problem that happened to be exposed by this test case,
which was that make_join_rel() was failing to notice some cases where
a constant-false qual could be used to prove a join relation empty. If it's
a pushed-down constant false, then the relation is empty even if it's an
outer join, because the qual applies after the outer join expansion.
Per report from Nathan Grange. Back-patch into 9.0.
peculiar variant of UNION ALL, and so wouldn't likely get written directly
as-is, it's possible for it to arise as a result of simplification of
less-obviously-silly queries. In particular, now that we can do flattening
of subqueries that have constant outputs and are underneath an outer join,
it's possible for the case to result from simplification of queries of the
type exhibited in bug #5263. Back-patch to 8.4 to avoid a functionality
regression for this type of query.
that's generated for a whole-row Var referencing the subquery, when the
subquery is in the nullable side of an outer join. The previous coding
instead put PlaceHolderVars around the elements of the RowExpr. The effect
was that when the outer join made the subquery outputs go to null, the
whole-row Var produced ROW(NULL,NULL,...) rather than just NULL. There
are arguments afoot about whether those things ought to be semantically
indistinguishable, but for the moment they are not entirely so, and the
planner needs to take care that its machinations preserve the difference.
Per bug #5025.
Making this feasible required refactoring ResolveNew() to allow more caller
control over what is substituted for a Var. I chose to make ResolveNew()
a wrapper around a new general-purpose function replace_rte_variables().
I also fixed the ancient bogosity that ResolveNew might fail to set
a query's hasSubLinks field after inserting a SubLink in it. Although
all current callers make sure that happens anyway, we've had bugs of that
sort before, and it seemed like a good time to install a proper solution.
Back-patch to 8.4. The problem can be demonstrated clear back to 8.0,
but the fix would be too invasive in earlier branches; not to mention
that people may be depending on the subtly-incorrect behavior. The
8.4 series is new enough that fixing this probably won't cause complaints,
but it might in older branches. Also, 8.4 shows the incorrect behavior
in more cases than older branches do, because it is able to flatten
subqueries in more cases.
by unique-ifying the RHS and then inner-joining to some other relation,
that is not grounds for violating the RHS of some other outer join.
Noticed while regression-testing new GEQO code, which will blindly follow
any path that join_is_legal says is legal, and then complain later if that
leads to a dead end.
I'm not certain that this can result in any visible failure in 8.4: the
mistake may always be masked by the fact that subsequent attempts to join
the rest of the RHS of the other join will fail. But I'm not certain it
can't, either, and it's definitely not operating as intended. So back-patch.
The added regression test depends on the new no-failures-allowed logic
that I'm about to commit in GEQO, so no point back-patching that.
that the sanity checking I added to create_mergejoin_plan() in 8.3 was a
few bricks shy of a load: the mergeclauses could reference pathkeys in a
noncanonical order such as x,y,x, not only cases like x,x,y which is all
that the code had allowed for. The odd cases only turn up when using
redundant clauses in an outer join condition, which is why no one had
noticed before.
making pull_up_sublinks() construct a full-blown JoinExpr tree representation
of IN/EXISTS SubLinks that it is able to convert to semi or anti joins.
This makes pull_up_sublinks() a shade more complex, but the gain in semantic
clarity is worth it. I still have more to do in this area to address the
previously-discussed problems, but this commit in itself fixes at least one
bug in HEAD, as shown by added regression test case.
of any lower outer join, even if it also references the non-nullable side and
so could not get pushed below the outer join anyway. We need this in case
the clause is an OR clause: if it doesn't get marked outerjoin_delayed,
create_or_index_quals() could pull an indexable restriction for the nullable
side out of it, leading to wrong results as demonstrated by today's bug
report from toruvinn. (See added regression test case for an example.)
In principle this has been wrong for quite a while. In practice I don't
think any branch before 8.3 can really show the failure, because
create_or_index_quals() will only pull out indexable conditions, and before
8.3 those were always strict. So though we might have improperly generated
null-extended rows in the outer join, they'd get discarded from the result
anyway. The gating factor that makes the failure visible is that 8.3
considers "col IS NULL" to be indexable. Hence I'm not going to risk
back-patching further than 8.3.
of poorer planning in 8.3 than 8.2:
1. After pushing a constant across an outer join --- ie, given
"a LEFT JOIN b ON (a.x = b.y) WHERE a.x = 42", we can deduce that b.y is
sort of equal to 42, in the sense that we needn't fetch any b rows where
it isn't 42 --- loop to see if any additional deductions can be made.
Previous releases did that by recursing, but I had mistakenly thought that
this was no longer necessary given the EquivalenceClass machinery.
2. Allow pushing constants across outer join conditions even if the
condition is outerjoin_delayed due to a lower outer join. This is safe
as long as the condition is strict and we re-test it at the upper join.
3. Keep the outer-join clause even if we successfully push a constant
across it. This is *necessary* in the outerjoin_delayed case, but
even in the simple case, it seems better to do this to ensure that the
join search order heuristics will consider the join as reasonable to
make. Mark such a clause as having selectivity 1.0, though, since it's
not going to eliminate very many rows after application of the constant
condition.
4. Tweak have_relevant_eclass_joinclause to report that two relations
are joinable when they have vars that are equated to the same constant.
We won't actually generate any joinclause from such an EquivalenceClass,
but again it seems that in such a case it's a good idea to consider
the join as worth costing out.
5. Fix a bug in select_mergejoin_clauses that was exposed by these
changes: we have to reject candidate mergejoin clauses if either side was
equated to a constant, because we can't construct a canonical pathkey list
for such a clause. This is an implementation restriction that might be
worth fixing someday, but it doesn't seem critical to get it done for 8.3.
sets for outer joins, in the light of bug #3588 and additional thought and
experimentation. The original methodology was fatally flawed for nests of
more than two outer joins: it got the relationships between adjacent joins
right, but didn't always come to the right conclusions about whether a join
could be interchanged with one two or more levels below it. This was largely
caused by a mistaken idea that we should use the min_lefthand + min_righthand
sets of a sub-join as the minimum left or right input set of an upper join
when we conclude that the sub-join can't commute with the upper one. If
there's a still-lower join that the sub-join *can* commute with, this method
led us to think that that one could commute with the topmost join; which it
can't. Another problem (not directly connected to bug #3588) was that
make_outerjoininfo's processing-order-dependent method for enforcing outer
join identity #3 didn't work right: if we decided that join A could safely
commute with lower join B, we dropped all information about sub-joins under B
that join A could perhaps not safely commute with, because we removed B's
entire min_righthand from A's.
To fix, make an explicit computation of all inner join combinations that occur
below an outer join, and add to that the full syntactic relsets of any lower
outer joins that we determine it can't commute with. This method gives much
more direct enforcement of the outer join rearrangement identities, and it
turns out not to cost a lot of additional bookkeeping.
Thanks to Richard Harris for the bug report and test case.
clauses in which one side or the other references both sides of the join
cannot be removed as redundant, because that expression won't have been
constrained below the join. Per report from Sergey Burladyan.
CVS HEAD does not contain this bug due to EquivalenceClass rewrite, but it
seems wise to include the regression test for it anyway.
in cases where a sub-SELECT inserts a WHERE clause between two outer joins,
that clause may prevent us from re-ordering the two outer joins. The code
was considering only the joins' own ON-conditions in determining reordering
safety, which is not good enough. Add a "delay_upper_joins" flag to
OuterJoinInfo to flag that we have detected such a clause and higher-level
outer joins shouldn't be permitted to commute with this one. (This might
seem overly coarse, but given the current rules for OJ reordering, it's
sufficient AFAICT.)
The failure case is actually pretty narrow: it needs a WHERE clause within
the RHS of a left join that checks the RHS of a lower left join, but is not
strict for that RHS (else we'd have simplified the lower join to a plain
join). Even then no failure will be manifest unless the planner chooses to
rearrange the join order.
Per bug report from Adam Terrey.
Tom Lane
Andres Freund
Robert Haas
Heikki Linnakangas
Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut