When extracting an attr from a cached tuple in the syscache with
SysCacheGetAttr the isnull parameter must be checked in case the
attr cannot be NULL. For cases when this is known beforehand, a
wrapper is introduced which perform the errorhandling internally
on behalf of the caller, invoking an elog in case of a NULL attr.
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/AD76405E-DB45-46B6-941F-17B1EB3A9076@yesql.se
As demonstrated by David Johnston, the Memoize cache hit ratio calculation
wasn't quite correct.
This change only affects the estimated hit ratio when the estimated number
of entries to cache is estimated not to fit inside the cache. For
example, if we expect 2000 distinct cache key values and only expect to be
able to cache 1000 of those at once due to memory constraints, with an
estimate of 10000 calls, if we could store all entries then the hit ratio
should be 80% to account for the first 2000 of the 10000 calls to be a
cache miss due to the value not being cached yet. If we can only store
1000 entries for each of the 2000 distinct possible values at once then
the 80% should be reduced by half to make the final estimate of 40%.
Previously, the calculation would have produced an estimated hit ratio of
30%, which wasn't correct.
Apply to master only so as not to destabilize plans in the back branches.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKFQuwZEmcNk3YQo2Xj4EDUOdY6qakad31rOD1Vc4q1_s68-Ew@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrV44LwiF4W_qf_RpbGYWSgp1kF=cZr+kTRRaALUfmXqw@mail.gmail.com
The Memoize executor node stores the cache key values along with the
tuple(s) which were found in the outer node which match each key value,
however, when the planner tried to estimate how many entries could be
stored in the cache, it didn't take into account that the cache key must
also be stored. In many cases, this won't make a large difference as the
key is likely small in comparison to the tuple(s) being stored, however,
it's not impossible to craft cases where the key could take more memory
than the tuple(s) stored for it.
Here we adjust the planner so it takes into account the estimated amount
of memory to store the cache key. Effectively, this change will reduce
the estimated cache hit ratio when it's thought that not all items will
fit in the cache, thus Memoize will become more expensive in such cases.
The executor already takes into account the memory consumed by the cache
key, so here we only need to adjust the planner.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqGErGuyBfQvBQrTCHDbzLTqoiW=_G9sOzeFxWEc_7auA@mail.gmail.com
The logic added in 9d9c02ccd to determine when a qual can be used as a
WindowClause run condition failed to correctly check for subqueries in the
qual. This was being done correctly for normal subquery qual pushdowns,
it's just that 9d9c02ccd failed to follow the lead on that.
This also fixes various other cases where transforming the qual into a
WindowClause run condition in the subquery should have been disallowed.
Bug: #17826
Reported-by: Anban Company
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17826-7d8750952f19a5f5@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 15, where 9d9c02ccd was introduced.
create_append_path() would only apply get_baserel_parampathinfo
when the path is for a partitioned table, but it's also potentially
useful for paths for UNION ALL appendrels. Specifically, that
supports building a Memoize path atop this one.
While we're in the vicinity, delete some dead code in
create_merge_append_plan(): there's no need for it to support
parameterized MergeAppend paths, and it doesn't look like that
is going to change anytime soon. It'll be easy enough to undo
this when/if it becomes useful.
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4_ABSu4PWG2rE1q10tJugEXHWgru3U8dAgkoFvgrb6aEA@mail.gmail.com
preprocess_targetlist thought PHVs couldn't appear here.
It was mistaken, as per report from Önder Kalacı.
Surveying other pull_var_clause calls, I noted no similar errors,
but I did notice that qual_is_pushdown_safe's assertion about
!contain_window_function was pointless, because the following
pull_var_clause call would complain about them anyway. In HEAD
only, remove the redundant Assert and improve the commentary.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CACawEhUuum-gC_2S3sXLTcsk7bUSPSHOD+g1ZpfKaDK-KKPPWA@mail.gmail.com
adjust_appendrel_attrs can't transfer nullingrel labeling to a non-Var
translation expression (mainly because it's too late to wrap such an
expression in a PlaceHolderVar). I'd supposed in commit 2489d76c4
that that restriction was unreachable because we'd not attempt to push
problematic clauses down to an appendrel child relation. I forgot that
set_append_rel_size blindly converts all the parent rel's joininfo
clauses to child clauses, and that list could well contain clauses
from above a nulling outer join.
We might eventually have to devise a direct fix for this implementation
restriction, but for now it seems enough to filter out troublesome
clauses while constructing the child's joininfo list. Such clauses
are certainly not useful while constructing paths for the child rel;
they'll have to be applied later when we join the completed appendrel
to something else. So we don't need them here, and omitting them from
the list should save a few cycles while processing the child rel.
Per bug #17832 from Marko Tiikkaja.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17832-d0a8106cdf1b722e@postgresql.org
This function has been semi-deprecated ever since we invented
bms_next_member(). Its habit of scribbling on the input bitmapset
isn't great, plus for sufficiently large bitmapsets it would take
O(N^2) time to complete a loop. Now we have the additional problem
that reducing the input to empty while leaving it still accessible
would violate a planned invariant. So let's just get rid of it,
after updating the few extant callers to use bms_next_member().
Patch by me; thanks to Nathan Bossart and Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1159933.1677621588@sss.pgh.pa.us
It's possible, in admittedly-rather-contrived cases, for an eclass
to generate a derived "join" qual that constrains the post-outer-join
value(s) of some RHS variable(s) without mentioning the LHS at all.
While the mechanisms were set up to work for this, we fell foul of
the "get_common_eclass_indexes" filter installed by commit 3373c7155:
it could decide that such an eclass wasn't relevant to the join, so
that the required qual clause wouldn't get emitted there or anywhere
else.
To fix, apply get_common_eclass_indexes only at inner joins, where
its rule is still valid. At an outer join, fall back to examining all
eclasses that mention either input (or the OJ relid, though it should
be impossible for an eclass to mention that without mentioning either
input). Perhaps we can improve on that later, but the cost/benefit of
adding more complexity to skip some irrelevant eclasses is dubious.
To allow cheaply distinguishing outer from inner joins, pass the
ojrelid to generate_join_implied_equalities as a separate argument.
This also allows cleaning up some sloppiness that had crept into
the definition of its join_relids argument, and it allows accurate
calculation of nominal_join_relids for a child outer join. (The
latter oversight seems not to have been a live bug, but it certainly
could have caused problems in future.)
Also fix what might be a live bug in check_index_predicates: it was
being sloppy about what it passed to generate_join_implied_equalities.
Per report from Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-DsTBfOvXuw64GdFss2=M5cwtEhY=0DCS7t2gT7P6hSA@mail.gmail.com
initsplan.c figured that it could push Var-free qual clauses to
the top of the current JoinDomain, which is okay in the abstract.
But if the current domain is inside some outer join, and we later
commute an inside-the-domain outer join with one outside it,
we end up placing the pushed-up qual clause incorrectly.
In distribute_qual_to_rels, avoid this by using the syntactic scope
of the qual clause; with the exception that if we're in the top-level
join domain we can still use the full query relid set, ensuring the
resulting gating Result node goes to the top of the plan. (This is
approximately as smart as the pre-v16 code was. Perhaps we can do
better later, but it's not clear that such cases are worth a lot of
sweat.)
In process_implied_equality, we don't have a clear notion of syntactic
scope, but we do have the results of SpecialJoinInfo construction.
Thumb through those and remove any lower outer joins that might get
commuted to above the join domain. Again, we can make an exception
for the top-level join domain. It'd be possible to work harder here
(for example, by keeping outer joins that aren't shown as potentially
commutable), but I'm going to stop here for the moment. This issue
has convinced me that the current representation of join domains
probably needs further refinement, so I'm disinclined to write
inessential dependent logic just yet.
In passing, tighten the qualscope passed to process_implied_equality
by generate_base_implied_equalities_no_const; there's no need for
it to be larger than the rel we are currently considering.
Tom Lane and Richard Guo, per report from Tender Wang.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHewXNk9eJ35ru5xATWioTV4+xZPHptjy9etdcNPjUfY9RQ+uQ@mail.gmail.com
This was not something that required consideration before MERGE
was invented; but MERGE builds a join tree that left-joins to the
result relation, meaning that remove_useless_joins will consider
removing it. That should generally be stopped by the query's use
of output variables from the result relation. However, if the
result relation is inherited (e.g. a partitioned table) then
we don't add any row identity variables to the query until
expand_inherited_rtentry, which happens after join removal.
This was exposed as of commit 3c569049b, which made it possible
to deduce that a partitioned table could contain at most one row
matching a join key, enabling removal of the not-yet-expanded
result relation. Ooops.
To fix, let's just teach join_is_removable that the query result
rel is never removable. It's a cheap enough test in any case,
and it'll save some cycles that we'd otherwise expend in proving
that it's not removable, even in the cases we got right.
Back-patch to v15 where MERGE was added. Although I think the
case cannot be reached in v15, this seems like cheap insurance.
Per investigation of a report from Alexander Lakhin.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/36bee393-b351-16ac-93b2-d46d83637e45@gmail.com
For no clearly good reason, make_modifytable assumed that it
could not reach its get-the-FDW-info-the-hard-way path in MERGE.
It's currently possible to demonstrate that assertion failing,
which seems to be due to an upstream planner bug; but there's no
good reason to do it like this at all. Let's apply the principle
of separation of concerns and make the MERGE check separately,
after getting or not getting the fdwroutine pointer.
Per report from Alexander Lakhin. No test case, since I think
the potential test condition will go away soon.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/36bee393-b351-16ac-93b2-d46d83637e45@gmail.com
The RelOptInfo->userid field (the user ID to check permissions as) of an
"otherrel" relation was being copied from its parent relation, which is
correct in most cases but wrong when the parent is a subquery. In that
case, using the value from the RTEPermissionInfo of the child itself is
the appropriate thing to do.
Coming up with a test case where user-visible behavior changes proves
hard enough, so we don't add one here.
Bug introduced by a61b1f7482, discovered by Amit while reviewing
nearby code.
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqE0WY_AhLnGtTsY7eYebG212XWbM-D8gr2A_ToOHyCywQ@mail.gmail.com
In generate_orderedappend_paths(), when match_partition_order_desc was
true, we would lcons() items to various lists in a loop over each live
partition. When the number of live partitions was large, the lcons()
could show up in profiles due to it having to perform memmove() to make
way for the new list item.
Here we adjust things so that we just perform the loop over the live
partitions backwards when match_partition_order_desc is true. This allows
us to simplify the logic in the loop. Now, as far as the guts of the loop
knows, there's no difference between match_partition_order and
match_partition_order_desc. We can just set match_partition_order to true
so that we build the correct list of paths for the asc and desc case. Per
idea from Andres Freund.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230217002351.nyt4y5tdzg6hugdt@awork3.anarazel.de
force_parallel_mode is meant to be used to allow us to exercise the
parallel query infrastructure to ensure that it's working as we expect.
It seems some users think this GUC is for forcing the query planner into
picking a parallel plan regardless of the costs. A quick look at the
documentation would have made them realize that they were wrong, but the
GUC is likely too conveniently named which, evidently, seems to often
result in users expecting that it forces the planner into usefully
parallelizing queries.
Here we rename the GUC to something which casual users are less likely to
mistakenly think is what they need to make their query run more quickly.
For now, the old name can still be used. We'll revisit if the old name
mapping can be removed once the buildfarm configs are all updated.
Reviewed-by: John Naylor
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrsOi92_uA7PEaHZMH-S4Xv+MGhQWA+GrP8b1kjpS1HjQ@mail.gmail.com
In commit b78f6264e I opined that it was "too risky" to delete a
relation's RelOptInfo from the planner's data structures when we have
realized that we don't need to join to it; so instead we just marked
it as a dead relation. In hindsight that judgment seems flawed: any
subsequent access to such a dead relation is arguably a bug in
itself, so leaving the RelOptInfo present just helps to mask bugs.
Let's delete it instead, allowing removal of the whole notion of a
"dead relation". So far as the regression tests can find, this
requires no other code changes, except for one Assert in equivclass.c
that was very dubiously not complaining about access to a dead rel.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/229905.1676062220@sss.pgh.pa.us
Late in the development of commit 2489d76c4, I (tgl) incorrectly
concluded that the new function have_unsafe_outer_join_ref couldn't
ever reach its inner loop. That should be the case if the inner
rel's parameterization is based on just one Var, but it could be
based on Vars from several relations, and then not only is the
inner loop reachable but it's wrongly coded.
Despite those errors, it still appears that the whole thing is
redundant given previous join_is_legal checks, so let's arrange
to only run it in assert-enabled builds.
Diagnosis and patch by Richard Guo, per fuzz testing by Justin Pryzby.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230212235823.GW1653@telsasoft.com
analyzejoins.c took care to clean out removed relids from the
clause_relids and required_relids of RestrictInfos associated with
the doomed rel ... but it paid no attention to the fact that if such a
RestrictInfo contains an OR clause, there will be sub-RestrictInfos
containing similar fields.
I'm more than a bit surprised that this oversight hasn't caused
visible problems before. In any case, it's certainly broken now,
so add logic to clean out the sub-RestrictInfos recursively.
We might need to back-patch this someday.
Per bug #17786 from Robins Tharakan.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17786-f1ea7fbdab97daec@postgresql.org
One of the add_nulling_relids calls in deconstruct_distribute_oj_quals
added an OJ relid to too few Vars, while the other added it to too
many. We should consider the syntactic structure not
min_left/righthand while deciding which Vars to decorate, and when
considering pushing up a lower outer join pursuant to transforming the
second form of OJ identity 3 to the first form, we only want to
decorate Vars coming from its LHS.
In a related bug, I realized that make_outerjoininfo was failing to
check a very basic property that's needed to apply OJ identity 3:
the syntactically-upper outer join clause can't refer to the lower
join's LHS. This didn't break the join order restriction logic,
but it led to setting bogus commute_xxx bits, possibly resulting
in bogus nullingrel markings in modified quals.
Richard Guo and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs497CmBruMx1SOjepWEz+T5NWa4scqbdE9v7ZzSXqH_gQw@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEP4nAx9C5gXNBfEA0JBfz7B+5f1Bawt-RWQWyhev-wdps8BZA@mail.gmail.com
The code I added in fee7b77b9 could misbehave if commute_above_r
contains multiple relids. While adding too many relids here is
probably harmless (pre-fee7b77b9, we did it all the time), it's
not very expensive to be accurate: we just have to intersect
commute_above_r with the join's relids.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17781-c0405c8b3cd5e072@postgresql.org
The logic for when to add the current outer join's own relid
to the nullingrels sets of output Vars and PHVs was overly
complicated and underly correct. Not sure why I didn't think
of this before, but since what we want is marking per the
syntactic structure, we can just consult our records about
the syntactic structure, ie syn_righthand/syn_lefthand.
Also, tighten the rule about when to add the commute_above_r
bits, in hopes of eliminating some squishy reasoning. I do not
know of a reason to think that that's broken as-is, but this way
seems better.
Per bug #17781 from Robins Tharakan.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17781-c0405c8b3cd5e072@postgresql.org
The portion of join_is_removable() that checks PlaceHolderVars
can be made a little more accurate and intelligible than it was.
The key point is that we can allow join removal even if a PHV
mentions the target rel in ph_eval_at, if that mention was only
added as a consequence of forcing the PHV up to a join level
that's at/above the outer join we're trying to get rid of.
We can check that by testing for the OJ's relid appearing in
ph_eval_at, indicating that it's supposed to be evaluated after
the outer join, plus the existing test that the contained
expression doesn't actually mention the target rel.
While here, add an explicit check that there'll be something left
in ph_eval_at after we remove the target rel and OJ relid. There
is an Assert later on about that, and I'm not too sure that the
case could happen for a PHV satisfying the other constraints,
but let's just check. (There was previously a bms_is_subset test
that meant to cover this risk, but it's broken now because it
doesn't account for the fact that we'll also remove the OJ relid.)
The real reason for revisiting this code though is that the
Assert I left behind in 8538519db turns out to be easily
reachable, because if a PHV of this sort appears in an upper-level
qual clause then that clause's clause_relids will include the
PHV's ph_eval_at relids. This is a mirage though: we have or soon
will remove these relids from the PHV's ph_eval_at, and therefore
they no longer belong in qual clauses' clause_relids either.
Remove that Assert in join_is_removable, and replace the similar
one in remove_rel_from_query with code to remove the deleted relids
from clause_relids.
Per bug #17773 from Robins Tharakan.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17773-a592e6cedbc7bac5@postgresql.org
make_outerjoininfo was set up to update SpecialJoinInfo's
commute_below, commute_above_l, commute_above_r fields as soon as
it found a pair of outer joins that look like they can commute.
However, this decision could be negated later in the same loop due
to finding an intermediate outer join that prevents commutation.
That left us with commute_xxx fields that were contradictory to the
join order restrictions expressed in min_lefthand/min_righthand.
The latter fields would keep us from actually choosing a bad join
order; but the inconsistent commute_xxx fields could bollix details
such as the varnullingrels values created for intermediate join
relation targetlists, ending in an assertion failure in setrefs.c.
To fix, wait till the end of make_outerjoininfo where we have
accurate values for min_lefthand/min_righthand, and then insert
only relids not present in those sets into the commute_xxx fields.
Per SQLSmith testing by Robins Tharakan. Note that while Robins
bisected the failure to commit b448f1c8d, it's really the fault of
2489d76c4. The outerjoin_delayed logic removed in the later commit
was keeping us from deciding that troublesome join pairs commute,
at least in the specific example seen here.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEP4nAyAORgE8K_RHSmvWbE9UaChhjbEL1RrDU3neePwwRUB=A@mail.gmail.com
deconstruct_distribute tweaks the outer join scope (ojscope)
it passes to distribute_qual_to_rels when considering an outer
join qual that's above potentially-commutable outer joins.
However, if the current join is *not* potentially commutable,
we shouldn't do that. The argument that distribute_qual_to_rels
will not do something wrong with the bogus ojscope falls flat
if we don't pass it non-null postponed_oj_qual_list. Moreover,
there's no need to play games in this case since we aren't going
to commute anything.
Per SQLSmith testing by Robins Tharakan.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEP4nAw74k4b-=93gmfCNX3MOY3y4uPxqbk_MnCVEpdsqHJVsg@mail.gmail.com
If we have a RestrictInfo that mentions both the removal-candidate
relation and the outer join's relid, then that is a pushed-down
condition not a join condition, so it should be grounds for deciding
that we can't remove the outer join. In commit 2489d76c4, I'd blindly
included the OJ's relid into "joinrelids" as per the new standard
convention, but the checks of attr_needed and ph_needed should only
allow the join's input rels to be mentioned.
Having done that, the check for references in pushed-down quals
a few lines further down should be redundant. I left it in place
as an Assert, though.
While researching this I happened across a couple of comments that
worried about the effects of update_placeholder_eval_levels.
That's gone as of b448f1c8d, so we can remove some worry.
Per bug #17769 from Robins Tharakan. The submitted test case
triggers this more or less accidentally because we flatten out
a LATERAL sub-select after we've done join strength reduction;
if we did that in the other order, this problem would be masked
because the outer join would get simplified to an inner join.
To ensure that the committed test case will continue to test
what it means to even if we make that happen someday, use a
test clause involving COALESCE(), which will prevent us from
using it to do join strength reduction.
Patch by me, but thanks to Richard Guo for initial investigation.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17769-e4f7a5c9d84a80a7@postgresql.org
After pulling up LATERAL subqueries, we may have qual clauses that
refer to relations outside their syntactic scope. Before doing any
such pullup, prepjointree.c checks to make sure that it wouldn't
create a semantically-invalid situation; but we leave it to
deconstruct_jointree() to actually move these quals up the join
tree to a place where they can be evaluated. In commit 2489d76c4,
I (tgl) refactored deconstruct_jointree() in a way that caused
assertion failures while moving such quals, because the new logic
failed to distinguish "this jointree node is a parent of the source
one" from "this jointree node is processed after the source
one in depth-first order".
Fix this, and at the same time reduce the overhead a bit, by
getting rid of the common PostponedQual list and instead making each
JoinTreeItem contain a list of quals that needed to be postponed to
its level. We can help distribute_qual_to_rels find the appropriate
JoinTreeItem efficiently by adding parent-item links to the
JoinTreeItem data structure. This ends up being the same number
of relid subset checks as the original (pre-bug) logic, but less
list manipulation is required during multi-level postponements.
Richard Guo and Tom Lane, per bug #17768 from Robins Tharakan.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17768-5ac8730ece54478f@postgresql.org
Here remove some dead code from heapgettup() and heapgettup_pagemode()
which was trying to support NoMovementScanDirection scans. This code can
never be reached as standard_ExecutorRun() never calls ExecutePlan with
NoMovementScanDirection.
Additionally, plans which were scanning an unordered index would use
NoMovementScanDirection rather than ForwardScanDirection. There was no
real need for this, so here we adjust this so we use ForwardScanDirection
for unordered index scans. A comment in pathnodes.h claimed that
NoMovementScanDirection was used for PathKey reasons, but if that was
true, it no longer is, per code in build_index_paths().
This does change the non-text format of the EXPLAIN output so that
unordered index scans now have a "Forward" scan direction rather than
"NoMovement". The text format of EXPLAIN has not changed.
Author: Melanie Plageman
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAKRu_bvkhka0CZQun28KTqhuUh5ZqY=_T8QEqZqOL02rpi2bw@mail.gmail.com
In commit 2489d76c4, I'd thought it'd be safe to assert that a
PlaceHolderVar appearing in a scan-level expression has empty
nullingrels. However this is not so, as when we determine that a
join relation is certainly empty we'll put its targetlist into a
Result-with-constant-false-qual node, and nothing is done to adjust
the nullingrels of the Vars or PHVs therein. (Arguably, a Result
used in this way isn't really a scan-level node, but it certainly
isn't an upper node either ...)
It's not clear this is worth any close analysis, so let's just
take out the faulty Assert.
Per report from Robins Tharakan. I added a test case based on
his example, just in case somebody tries to tighten this up.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEP4nAz7Enq3+DEthGG7j27DpuwSRZnW0Nh6jtNh75yErQ_nbA@mail.gmail.com
EquivalenceClasses are now understood as applying within a "join
domain", which is a set of inner-joined relations (possibly underneath
an outer join). We no longer need to treat an EC from below an outer
join as a second-class citizen.
I have hopes of eventually being able to treat outer-join clauses via
EquivalenceClasses, by means of only applying deductions within the
EC's join domain. There are still problems in the way of that, though,
so for now the reconsider_outer_join_clause logic is still here.
I haven't been able to get rid of RestrictInfo.is_pushed_down either,
but I wonder if that could be recast using JoinDomains.
I had to hack one test case in postgres_fdw.sql to make it still test
what it was meant to, because postgres_fdw is inconsistent about
how it deals with quals containing non-shippable expressions; see
https://postgr.es/m/1691374.1671659838@sss.pgh.pa.us. That should
be improved, but I don't think it's within the scope of this patch
series.
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
Remove RestrictInfo.nullable_relids, along with a good deal of
infrastructure that calculated it. One use-case for it was in
join_clause_is_movable_to, but we can now replace that usage with
a check to see if the clause's relids include any outer join
that can null the target relation. The other use-case was in
join_clause_is_movable_into, but that test can just be dropped
entirely now that the clause's relids include outer joins.
Furthermore, join_clause_is_movable_into should now be
accurate enough that it will accept anything returned by
generate_join_implied_equalities, so we can restore the Assert
that was diked out in commit 95f4e59c3.
Remove the outerjoin_delayed mechanism. We needed this before to
prevent quals from getting evaluated below outer joins that should
null some of their vars. Now that we consider varnullingrels while
placing quals, that's taken care of automatically, so throw the
whole thing away.
Teach remove_useless_result_rtes to also remove useless FromExprs.
Having done that, the delay_upper_joins flag serves no purpose any
more and we can remove it, largely reverting 11086f2f2.
Use constant TRUE for "dummy" clauses when throwing back outer joins.
This improves on a hack I introduced in commit 6a6522529. If we
have a left-join clause l.x = r.y, and a WHERE clause l.x = constant,
we generate r.y = constant and then don't really have a need for the
join clause. But we must throw the join clause back anyway after
marking it redundant, so that the join search heuristics won't think
this is a clauseless join and avoid it. That was a kluge introduced
under time pressure, and after looking at it I thought of a better
way: let's just introduce constant-TRUE "join clauses" instead,
and get rid of them at the end. This improves the generated plans for
such cases by not having to test a redundant join clause. We can also
get rid of the ugly hack used to mark such clauses as redundant for
selectivity estimation.
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
This adds combine, serial and deserial functions for the array_agg() and
string_agg() aggregate functions, thus allowing these aggregates to
partake in partial aggregations. This allows both parallel aggregation to
take place when these aggregates are present and also allows additional
partition-wise aggregation plan shapes to include plans that require
additional aggregation once the partially aggregated results from the
partitions have been combined.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Tomas Vondra, Stephen Frost, Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f9sx_6GTcvd6TMuZnNtCh0VhBzhX6FZqw17TgVFH-ga_A@mail.gmail.com
RelOptInfo.userid is the same for all relations in a given inheritance
tree, so the code in examine_variable() and example_simple_variable()
that repeats the ACL checks on the root parent rel instead of a given
leaf child relations need not recompute userid too.
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20221210201753.GA27893@telsasoft.com
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
Avoid explicitly grouping by columns that we know are redundant
for sorting, for example we need group by only one of x and y in
SELECT ... WHERE x = y GROUP BY x, y
This comes up more often than you might think, as shown by the
changes in the regression tests. It's nearly free to detect too,
since we are just piggybacking on the existing logic that detects
redundant pathkeys. (In some of the existing plans that change,
it's visible that a sort step preceding the grouping step already
didn't bother to sort by the redundant column, making the old plan
a bit silly-looking.)
To do this, build processed_groupClause and processed_distinctClause
lists that omit any provably-redundant sort items, and consult those
not the originals where relevant. This means that within the
planner, one should usually consult root->processed_groupClause or
root->processed_distinctClause if one wants to know which columns
are to be grouped on; but to check whether grouping or distinct-ing
is happening at all, check non-NIL-ness of parse->groupClause or
parse->distinctClause. This is comparable to longstanding rules
about handling the HAVING clause, so I don't think it'll be a huge
maintenance problem.
nodeAgg.c also needs minor mods, because it's now possible to generate
AGG_PLAIN and AGG_SORTED Agg nodes with zero grouping columns.
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo and David Rowley for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/185315.1672179489@sss.pgh.pa.us
In 1349d2790, we gave the planner the ability to provide ORDER BY/DISTINCT
Aggrefs with presorted input so that nodeAgg would not have to perform
sorts during execution. That commit failed to properly consider the
implications of if the Aggref had a volatile function in its ORDER
BY/DISTINCT clause. As it happened, this resulted in an ERROR about the
volatile function being missing from the targetlist.
Here, instead of adding the volatile function to the targetlist, we just
never consider an Aggref with a volatile function in its ORDER BY/DISTINCT
clause when choosing which Aggrefs we should sort by. We do this as if we
were to choose a plan which provided these aggregates with presorted
input, then if there were many such aggregates which could all share the
same sort order, then it may be surprising if they all shared the same
sort sometimes and didn't at other times when some other set of aggregates
were given presorted results. We can avoid this inconsistency by just
never providing these volatile function aggregates with presorted input.
Reported-by: Dean Rasheed
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWETioXs5kY8vT6BVguY41_wD962VDk=u_Nvd7S1UXzuQ@mail.gmail.com
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
Prior to this, we only considered a full sort on the cheapest input path
and uniquifying any path which was already sorted in the required sort
order. Here we adjust create_final_distinct_paths() so that it also
adds an Incremental Sort path on any path which has presorted keys.
Additionally, this adjusts the parallel distinct code so that we now
consider sorting the cheapest partial path and incrementally sorting any
partial paths with presorted keys. Previously we didn't consider any
sorting for parallel distinct and only added a unique path atop any path
which had the required pathkeys already.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvo8Lz2H=42urBbfP65LTcEUOh288MT7DsG2_EWtW1AXHQ@mail.gmail.com
This allows left join removals and unique joins to work with partitioned
tables. The planner just lacked sufficient proofs that a given join
would not cause any row duplication. Unique indexes currently serve as
that proof, so have get_relation_info() populate the indexlist for
partitioned tables too.
Author: Arne Roland
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera, Zhihong Yu, Amit Langote, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/c3b2408b7a39433b8230bbcd02e9f302@index.de
During the development of 728202b63, which was aimed at reducing the
number of sorts required to evaluate multiple window functions with
different WindowClause definitions, the code written sorted the
WindowClauses in reverse tleSortGroupRef order. There appears to be no
discussion in the thread which was opened to discuss the development of
this patch and no comments mentioning the fact that having the
WindowClauses in reverse tleSortGroupRef order makes it more likely that
the final WindowClause to be evaluated will provide presorted input to
the query's DISTINCT or ORDER BY clause. The reason for this is that the
tleSortGroupRef indexes are assigned for the DISTINCT and ORDER BY clauses
before they are for the WindowClauses PARTITION BY and ORDER BY clauses.
Putting the WindowClause with the lowest tleSortGroupRef last means that
it's more likely that no additional sorting is required for the query's
DISTINCT or ORDER BY clause.
All we're doing here is adding some tests and a comment to help ensure
that remains true and that we don't accidentally forget to consider this
again should we ever rewrite that code.
Author: Ankit Kumar Pandey, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvq=g2=ny59f1bvwRVvupsgPHK-KjLPBsSL25fVuGZ4idQ@mail.gmail.com
We were identifying the updatable generated columns of inheritance
children by transposing the calculation made for their parent.
However, there's nothing that says a traditional-inheritance child
can't have generated columns that aren't there in its parent, or that
have different dependencies than are in the parent's expression.
(At present it seems that we don't enforce that for partitioning
either, which is likely wrong to some degree or other; but the case
clearly needs to be handled with traditional inheritance.)
Hence, drop the very-klugy-anyway "extraUpdatedCols" RTE field
in favor of identifying which generated columns depend on updated
columns during executor startup. In HEAD we can remove
extraUpdatedCols altogether; in back branches, it's still there but
always empty. Another difference between the HEAD and back-branch
versions of this patch is that in HEAD we can add the new bitmap field
to ResultRelInfo, but that would cause an ABI break in back branches.
Like 4b3e37993, add a List field at the end of struct EState instead.
Back-patch to v13. The bogus calculation is also being made in v12,
but it doesn't have the same visible effect because we don't use it
to decide which generated columns to recalculate; as a consequence of
which the patch doesn't apply easily. I think that there might still
be a demonstrable bug associated with trigger firing conditions, but
that's such a weird corner-case usage that I'm content to leave it
unfixed in v12.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFshLKNvQUd1DgwJ-7tsTp=dwv7KZqXC4j2wYBV1aCDUA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2793383.1672944799@sss.pgh.pa.us
While on it, newlines are removed from the end of two elog() strings.
The others are simple grammar mistakes. One comment in pg_upgrade
referred incorrectly to sequences since a7e5457.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20221230231257.GI1153@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 11
Daniel Gustafsson
David Rowley
Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut
Michael Paquier
Bruce Momjian