The rule system needs "old" and/or "new" pseudo-RTEs in rule actions
that are ON INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. Historically it's put such entries
into the ON SELECT rules of views as well, but those are really quite
vestigial. The only thing we've used them for is to carry the
view's relid forward to AcquireExecutorLocks (so that we can
re-lock the view to verify it hasn't changed before re-using a plan)
and to carry its relid and permissions data forward to execution-time
permissions checks. What we can do instead of that is to retain
these fields of the RTE_RELATION RTE for the view even after we
convert it to an RTE_SUBQUERY RTE. This requires a tiny amount of
extra complication in the planner and AcquireExecutorLocks, but on
the other hand we can get rid of the logic that moves that data from
one place to another.
The principal immediate benefit of doing this, aside from a small
saving in the pg_rewrite data for views, is that these pseudo-RTEs
no longer trigger ruleutils.c's heuristic about qualifying variable
names when the rangetable's length is more than 1. That results
in quite a number of small simplifications in regression test outputs,
which are all to the good IMO.
Bump catversion because we need to dump a few more fields of
RTE_SUBQUERY RTEs. While those will always be zeroes anyway in
stored rules (because we'd never populate them until query rewrite)
they are useful for debugging, and it seems like we'd better make
sure to transmit such RTEs accurately in plans sent to parallel
workers. I don't think the executor actually examines these fields
after startup, but someday it might.
This is a second attempt at committing 1b4d280ea. The difference
from the first time is that now we can add some filtering rules to
AdjustUpgrade.pm to allow cross-version upgrade testing to pass
despite all the cosmetic changes in CREATE VIEW outputs.
Amit Langote (filtering rules by me)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqEf7gPN4Hn+LoZ4tP2q_Qt7n3vw7-6fJKOf92tSEnX6Gg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/891521.1673657296@sss.pgh.pa.us
This reverts commit 1b4d280ea1.
It's broken the buildfarm members that run cross-version-upgrade tests,
because they're not prepared to deal with cosmetic differences between
CREATE VIEW commands emitted by older servers and HEAD. Even if we had
a solution to that, which we don't, it'd take some time to roll it out
to the affected animals. This improvement isn't valuable enough to
justify addressing that problem on an emergency basis, so revert it
for now.
The rule system needs "old" and/or "new" pseudo-RTEs in rule actions
that are ON INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. Historically it's put such entries
into the ON SELECT rules of views as well, but those are really quite
vestigial. The only thing we've used them for is to carry the
view's relid forward to AcquireExecutorLocks (so that we can
re-lock the view to verify it hasn't changed before re-using a plan)
and to carry its relid and permissions data forward to execution-time
permissions checks. What we can do instead of that is to retain
these fields of the RTE_RELATION RTE for the view even after we
convert it to an RTE_SUBQUERY RTE. This requires a tiny amount of
extra complication in the planner and AcquireExecutorLocks, but on
the other hand we can get rid of the logic that moves that data from
one place to another.
The principal immediate benefit of doing this, aside from a small
saving in the pg_rewrite data for views, is that these pseudo-RTEs
no longer trigger ruleutils.c's heuristic about qualifying variable
names when the rangetable's length is more than 1. That results
in quite a number of small simplifications in regression test outputs,
which are all to the good IMO.
Bump catversion because we need to dump a few more fields of
RTE_SUBQUERY RTEs. While those will always be zeroes anyway in
stored rules (because we'd never populate them until query rewrite)
they are useful for debugging, and it seems like we'd better make
sure to transmit such RTEs accurately in plans sent to parallel
workers. I don't think the executor actually examines these fields
after startup, but someday it might.
Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqEf7gPN4Hn+LoZ4tP2q_Qt7n3vw7-6fJKOf92tSEnX6Gg@mail.gmail.com
WITH TIES is an option to the FETCH FIRST N ROWS clause (the SQL
standard's spelling of LIMIT), where you additionally get rows that
compare equal to the last of those N rows by the columns in the
mandatory ORDER BY clause.
There was a proposal by Andrew Gierth to implement this functionality in
a more powerful way that would yield more features, but the other patch
had not been finished at this time, so we decided to use this one for
now in the spirit of incremental development.
Author: Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALAY4q9ky7rD_A4vf=FVQvCGngm3LOes-ky0J6euMrg=_Se+ag@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87o8wvz253.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Perusal of the code coverage report shows that the existing regression
test cases for LIMIT/OFFSET don't exercise the nodeLimit code paths
involving backwards scan, empty results, or null values of LIMIT/OFFSET.
Improve the coverage.
Evaluation of set returning functions (SRFs_ in the targetlist (like SELECT
generate_series(1,5)) so far was done in the expression evaluation (i.e.
ExecEvalExpr()) and projection (i.e. ExecProject/ExecTargetList) code.
This meant that most executor nodes performing projection, and most
expression evaluation functions, had to deal with the possibility that an
evaluated expression could return a set of return values.
That's bad because it leads to repeated code in a lot of places. It also,
and that's my (Andres's) motivation, made it a lot harder to implement a
more efficient way of doing expression evaluation.
To fix this, introduce a new executor node (ProjectSet) that can evaluate
targetlists containing one or more SRFs. To avoid the complexity of the old
way of handling nested expressions returning sets (e.g. having to pass up
ExprDoneCond, and dealing with arguments to functions returning sets etc.),
those SRFs can only be at the top level of the node's targetlist. The
planner makes sure (via split_pathtarget_at_srfs()) that SRF evaluation is
only necessary in ProjectSet nodes and that SRFs are only present at the
top level of the node's targetlist. If there are nested SRFs the planner
creates multiple stacked ProjectSet nodes. The ProjectSet nodes always get
input from an underlying node.
We also discussed and prototyped evaluating targetlist SRFs using ROWS
FROM(), but that turned out to be more complicated than we'd hoped.
While moving SRF evaluation to ProjectSet would allow to retain the old
"least common multiple" behavior when multiple SRFs are present in one
targetlist (i.e. continue returning rows until all SRFs are at the end of
their input at the same time), we decided to instead only return rows till
all SRFs are exhausted, returning NULL for already exhausted ones. We
deemed the previous behavior to be too confusing, unexpected and actually
not particularly useful.
As a side effect, the previously prohibited case of multiple set returning
arguments to a function, is now allowed. Not because it's particularly
desirable, but because it ends up working and there seems to be no argument
for adding code to prohibit it.
Currently the behavior for COALESCE and CASE containing SRFs has changed,
returning multiple rows from the expression, even when the SRF containing
"arm" of the expression is not evaluated. That's because the SRFs are
evaluated in a separate ProjectSet node. As that's quite confusing, we're
likely to instead prohibit SRFs in those places. But that's still being
discussed, and the code would reside in places not touched here, so that's
a task for later.
There's a lot of, now superfluous, code dealing with set return expressions
around. But as the changes to get rid of those are verbose largely boring,
it seems better for readability to keep the cleanup as a separate commit.
Author: Tom Lane and Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160822214023.aaxz5l4igypowyri@alap3.anarazel.de
In commit 915b703e1 I gave get_agg_clause_costs() the responsibility of
marking Aggref nodes with the appropriate aggtranstype. I failed to notice
that where it was being called from, it might see only a subset of the
Aggref nodes that were in the original targetlist. Specifically, if there
are duplicate aggregate calls in the tlist, either make_sort_input_target
or make_window_input_target might put just a single instance into the
grouping_target, and then only that instance would get marked. Fix by
moving the call back into grouping_planner(), before we start building
assorted PathTargets from the query tlist. Per report from Stefan Huehner.
Report: <20160702131056.GD3165@huehner.biz>
In commit 9118d03a8c we taught the planner to postpone evaluation of
set-returning functions in a SELECT's targetlist until after any sort done
to satisfy ORDER BY. However, if we postpone some SRFs this way while
others do not get postponed (because they're sort or group key columns)
we will break the traditional behavior by which all SRFs in the tlist run
in-step during ExecTargetList(), so that you get the least common multiple
of their periods not the product. Fix make_sort_input_target() so it will
not split up SRF evaluation in such cases.
There is still a hazard of similar odd behavior if there's a SRF in a
grouping column and another one that isn't, but that was true before
and we're just trying to preserve bug-compatibility with the traditional
behavior. This whole area is overdue to be rethought and reimplemented,
but we'll try to avoid changing behavior until then.
Per report from Regina Obe.
It is frequently useful for volatile, set-returning, or expensive functions
in a SELECT's targetlist to be postponed till after ORDER BY and LIMIT are
done. Otherwise, the functions might be executed for every row of the
table despite the presence of LIMIT, and/or be executed in an unexpected
order. For example, in
SELECT x, nextval('seq') FROM tab ORDER BY x LIMIT 10;
it's probably desirable that the nextval() values are ordered the same
as x, and that nextval() is not run more than 10 times.
In the past, Postgres was inconsistent in this area: you would get the
desirable behavior if the ordering were performed via an indexscan, but
not if it had to be done by an explicit sort step. Getting the desired
behavior reliably required contortions like
SELECT x, nextval('seq')
FROM (SELECT x FROM tab ORDER BY x) ss LIMIT 10;
This patch conditionally postpones evaluation of pure-output target
expressions (that is, those that are not used as DISTINCT, ORDER BY, or
GROUP BY columns) so that they effectively occur after sorting, even if an
explicit sort step is necessary. Volatile expressions and set-returning
expressions are always postponed, so as to provide consistent semantics.
Expensive expressions (costing more than 10 times typical operator cost,
which by default would include any user-defined function) are postponed
if there is a LIMIT or if there are expressions that must be postponed.
We could be more aggressive and postpone any nontrivial expression, but
there are costs associated with doing so: it requires an extra Result plan
node which adds some overhead, and postponement changes the volume of data
going through the sort step, perhaps for the worse. Since we tend not to
have very good estimates of the output width of nontrivial expressions,
it's hard to have much confidence in our ability to predict whether
postponement would increase or decrease the cost of the sort; therefore
this patch doesn't attempt to make decisions conditionally on that.
Between these factors and a general desire not to change query behavior
when there's not a demonstrable benefit, it seems best to be conservative
about applying postponement. We might tweak the decision rules in the
future, though.
Konstantin Knizhnik, heavily rewritten by me
recompute the limit/offset immediately, so that the updated values are
available when the child's ReScan function is invoked. Add a regression
test for this, too. Bug is new in HEAD (due to the bounded-sorting patch)
so no need for back-patch.
I did not do anything about merging this signaling with chgParam processing,
but if we were to do that we'd still need to compute the updated values
at this point rather than during the first ProcNode call.
Per observation and test case from Greg Stark, though I didn't use his patch.
which is broken in some weird way that I don't understand. I think it
may be exposing a bug in the new psql --- for one thing, I get different
results when I run psql by hand than the regress script gets. What
the heck???
Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut
Andres Freund
Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian
Jan Wieck