Commit Graph

7 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Joe Conway 5eb15c9942 SERIALIZABLE transactions are actually implemented beneath the covers with
transaction snapshots, i.e. a snapshot registered at the beginning of
a transaction. Change variable naming and comments to reflect this reality
in preparation for a future, truly serializable mode, e.g.
Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI).

For the moment transaction snapshots are still used to implement
SERIALIZABLE, but hopefully not for too much longer. Patch by Kevin
Grittner and Dan Ports with review and some minor wording changes by me.
2010-09-11 18:38:58 +00:00
Tom Lane 77c75076f3 Fix oversight in new EvalPlanQual logic: the second loop over the ExecRowMark
list in ExecLockRows() forgot to allow for the possibility that some of the
rowmarks are for child tables that aren't relevant to the current row.
Per report from Kenichiro Tanaka.
2010-07-28 17:21:56 +00:00
Tom Lane 53e757689c Make NestLoop plan nodes pass outer-relation variables into their inner
relation using the general PARAM_EXEC executor parameter mechanism, rather
than the ad-hoc kluge of passing the outer tuple down through ExecReScan.
The previous method was hard to understand and could never be extended to
handle parameters coming from multiple join levels.  This patch doesn't
change the set of possible plans nor have any significant performance effect,
but it's necessary infrastructure for future generalization of the concept
of an inner indexscan plan.

ExecReScan's second parameter is now unused, so it's removed.
2010-07-12 17:01:06 +00:00
Bruce Momjian 65e806cba1 pgindent run for 9.0 2010-02-26 02:01:40 +00:00
Bruce Momjian 0239800893 Update copyright for the year 2010. 2010-01-02 16:58:17 +00:00
Tom Lane 9f2ee8f287 Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminate
a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases.  We now identify the
"current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR
UPDATE/SHARE queries.  If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the
appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit
only that one row.  The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined
relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much
worse could result in duplicated output tuples.

Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck
execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for
every row to be tested.  To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special
runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to
make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param.  Thus, by
signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the
already-built test plan.

This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the
targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE.  This is needed to avoid the
duplicate-output-tuple problem.  It seems fairly reasonable since the
other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there
is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples,
which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
2009-10-26 02:26:45 +00:00
Tom Lane 0adaf4cb31 Move the handling of SELECT FOR UPDATE locking and rechecking out of
execMain.c and into a new plan node type LockRows.  Like the recent change
to put table updating into a ModifyTable plan node, this increases planning
flexibility by allowing the operations to occur below the top level of the
plan tree.  It's necessary in any case to restore the previous behavior of
having FOR UPDATE locking occur before ModifyTable does.

This partially refactors EvalPlanQual to allow multiple rows-under-test
to be inserted into the EPQ machinery before starting an EPQ test query.
That isn't sufficient to fix EPQ's general bogosity in the face of plans
that return multiple rows per test row, though.  Since this patch is
mostly about getting some plan node infrastructure in place and not about
fixing ten-year-old bugs, I will leave EPQ improvements for another day.

Another behavioral change that we could now think about is doing FOR UPDATE
before LIMIT, but that too seems like it should be treated as a followon
patch.
2009-10-12 18:10:51 +00:00