It wasn't all that clear which lock levels, if any, would be held on the
DEFAULT partition during an ATTACH PARTITION operation.
Also, clarify which locks will be taken if the DEFAULT partition or the
table being attached are themselves partitioned tables.
Here I'm only backpatching to v12 as before then we obtained an ACCESS
EXCLUSIVE lock on the partitioned table. It seems much less relevant to
mention which locks are taken on other tables when the partitioned table
itself is locked with an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock.
Author: Matthias van de Meent, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEze2WiTB6iwrV8W_J=fnrnZ7fowW3qu-8iQ8zCHP3FiQ6+o-A@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 12
Some sections of the documentation used "exclusive lock" to describe
that an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is taken during a given operation. This
can be confusing to the reader as ACCESS SHARE is allowed with an
EXCLUSIVE lock is used, but that would not be the case with what is
described on those parts of the documentation.
Author: Greg Rychlewski
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKemG7VptD=7fNWckFMsMVZL_zzvgDO6v2yVmQ+ZiBfc_06kCQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6
This patch makes two closely related sets of changes:
1. For UPDATE, the subplan of the ModifyTable node now only delivers
the new values of the changed columns (i.e., the expressions computed
in the query's SET clause) plus row identity information such as CTID.
ModifyTable must re-fetch the original tuple to merge in the old
values of any unchanged columns. The core advantage of this is that
the changed columns are uniform across all tables of an inherited or
partitioned target relation, whereas the other columns might not be.
A secondary advantage, when the UPDATE involves joins, is that less
data needs to pass through the plan tree. The disadvantage of course
is an extra fetch of each tuple to be updated. However, that seems to
be very nearly free in context; even worst-case tests don't show it to
add more than a couple percent to the total query cost. At some point
it might be interesting to combine the re-fetch with the tuple access
that ModifyTable must do anyway to mark the old tuple dead; but that
would require a good deal of refactoring and it seems it wouldn't buy
all that much, so this patch doesn't attempt it.
2. For inherited UPDATE/DELETE, instead of generating a separate
subplan for each target relation, we now generate a single subplan
that is just exactly like a SELECT's plan, then stick ModifyTable
on top of that. To let ModifyTable know which target relation a
given incoming row refers to, a tableoid junk column is added to
the row identity information. This gets rid of the horrid hack
that was inheritance_planner(), eliminating O(N^2) planning cost
and memory consumption in cases where there were many unprunable
target relations.
Point 2 of course requires point 1, so that there is a uniform
definition of the non-junk columns to be returned by the subplan.
We can't insist on uniform definition of the row identity junk
columns however, if we want to keep the ability to have both
plain and foreign tables in a partitioning hierarchy. Since
it wouldn't scale very far to have every child table have its
own row identity column, this patch includes provisions to merge
similar row identity columns into one column of the subplan result.
In particular, we can merge the whole-row Vars typically used as
row identity by FDWs into one column by pretending they are type
RECORD. (It's still okay for the actual composite Datums to be
labeled with the table's rowtype OID, though.)
There is more that can be done to file down residual inefficiencies
in this patch, but it seems to be committable now.
FDW authors should note several API changes:
* The argument list for AddForeignUpdateTargets() has changed, and so
has the method it must use for adding junk columns to the query. Call
add_row_identity_var() instead of manipulating the parse tree directly.
You might want to reconsider exactly what you're adding, too.
* PlanDirectModify() must now work a little harder to find the
ForeignScan plan node; if the foreign table is part of a partitioning
hierarchy then the ForeignScan might not be the direct child of
ModifyTable. See postgres_fdw for sample code.
* To check whether a relation is a target relation, it's no
longer sufficient to compare its relid to root->parse->resultRelation.
Instead, check it against all_result_relids or leaf_result_relids,
as appropriate.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqHpHdqdDn48yCEhynnniahH78rwcrv1rEX65-fsZGBOLQ@mail.gmail.com
We italicized some, but not all, instances of "per se", "pro forma", and
"ad hoc". These phrases are widespread in formal registers of English,
so it"s debatable whether they even qualify as foreign. We could instead
try to be more consistent in the use of <foreignphrase>, but that"s
difficult to enforce, so let"s just remove the tags for those words.
The one case that seems to deserve the tag is "voilà". Instead of keeping
just one instance of the tag, change that to a more standard phrase.
John Naylor
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFBsxsHtWs_NsccAVgQ=tTUKkXHpHdkjZXtp_Cd9dGWyBDxfbQ@mail.gmail.com
In trying to protect the user from inconsistent behavior, commit
487e9861d0 "Enable BEFORE row-level triggers for partitioned tables"
tried to prevent BEFORE UPDATE FOR EACH ROW triggers from moving the row
from one partition to another. However, it turns out that the
restriction is wrong in two ways: first, it fails spuriously, preventing
valid situations from working, as in bug #16794; and second, they don't
protect from any misbehavior, because tuple routing would cope anyway.
Fix by removing that restriction.
We keep the same restriction on BEFORE INSERT FOR EACH ROW triggers,
though. It is valid and useful there. In the future we could remove it
by having tuple reroute work for inserts as it does for updates.
Backpatch to 13.
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reported-by: Phillip Menke <pg@pmenke.de>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16794-350a655580fbb9ae@postgresql.org
The page about privilege rights mentioned that TRUNCATE could be applied
to views or even other relation types. This is confusing as this
command can be used only on tables and on partitioned tables.
Oversight in afc4a78.
Reported-by: Harisai Hari
Reviewed-by: Laurenz Albe
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/161157636877.14625.15340884663716426087@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 12
This started with the intent to explain that range upper bounds
are exclusive, which previously you could only find out by reading
the CREATE TABLE man page. But I soon found that section 5.11
really could stand a fair amount of editorial attention. It's
apparently been revised several times without much concern for
overall flow, nor careful copy-editing.
Back-patch to v11, which is as far as the patch goes easily.
Per gripe from Edson Richter. Thanks to David Johnston for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/DM6PR13MB3988736CF8F5DC5720440231CFE60@DM6PR13MB3988.namprd13.prod.outlook.com
SQL commands are generally marked up as <command>, except when a link
to a reference page is used using <xref>. But the latter doesn't
create monospace markup, so this looks strange especially when a
paragraph contains a mix of links and non-links.
We considered putting <command> in the <refentrytitle> on the target
side, but that creates some formatting side effects elsewhere.
Generally, it seems safer to solve this on the link source side.
We can't put the <xref> inside the <command>; the DTD doesn't allow
this. DocBook 5 would allow the <command> to have the linkend
attribute itself, but we are not there yet.
So to solve this for now, convert the <xref>s to <link> plus
<command>. This gives the correct look and also gives some more
flexibility what we can put into the link text (e.g., subcommands or
other clauses). In the future, these could then be converted to
DocBook 5 style.
I haven't converted absolutely all xrefs to SQL command reference
pages, only those where we care about the appearance of the link text
or where it was otherwise appropriate to make the appearance match a
bit better. Also in some cases, the links where repetitive, so in
those cases the links where just removed and replaced by a plain
<command>. In cases where we just want the link and don't
specifically care about the generated link text (typically phrased
"for further information see <xref ...>") the xref is kept.
Reported-by: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/87o8pco34z.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org
Explicitly mention that primary key constraints are also included in the
limitation that the constraint columns must be a superset of the partition key
columns.
Wording suggestion from Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/64062533.78364.1601415362244@mail.yahoo.com
Backpatch-through: 11, where unique constraints on partitioned tables were added
In one or two places it seemed reasonable to modify the example so as
to shorten its output slightly; but for the most part I just added a
&zwsp; after 67 characters, which is the most we can fit on a line
of monospace text in A4 format.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/6916.1589146280@sss.pgh.pa.us
I concluded that we really just ought to force all tables in PDF output
to default to "left" alignment (instead of "justify"); that is what the
HTML toolchain does and that's what most people have been designing the
tables to look good with. There are few if any places where "justify"
produces better-looking output, and there are many where it looks
horrible. So change stylesheet-fo.xsl to make that true.
Also tweak column widths in a few more tables to make them look better
and avoid "exceed the available area" warnings. This commit fixes
basically everything that can be fixed through that approach. The
remaining tables that give warnings either are scheduled for redesign
as per recent discussions, or need a fundamental rethink because they
Just Don't Work in a narrow view.
This patch creates a new extension property, "trusted". An extension
that's marked that way in its control file can be installed by a
non-superuser who has the CREATE privilege on the current database,
even if the extension contains objects that normally would have to be
created by a superuser. The objects within the extension will (by
default) be owned by the bootstrap superuser, but the extension itself
will be owned by the calling user. This allows replicating the old
behavior around trusted procedural languages, without all the
special-case logic in CREATE LANGUAGE. We have, however, chosen to
loosen the rules slightly: formerly, only a database owner could take
advantage of the special case that allowed installation of a trusted
language, but now anyone who has CREATE privilege can do so.
Having done that, we can delete the pg_pltemplate catalog, moving the
knowledge it contained into the extension script files for the various
PLs. This ends up being no change at all for the in-core PLs, but it is
a large step forward for external PLs: they can now have the same ease
of installation as core PLs do. The old "trusted PL" behavior was only
available to PLs that had entries in pg_pltemplate, but now any
extension can be marked trusted if appropriate.
This also removes one of the stumbling blocks for our Python 2 -> 3
migration, since the association of "plpythonu" with Python 2 is no
longer hard-wired into pg_pltemplate's initial contents. Exactly where
we go from here on that front remains to be settled, but one problem
is fixed.
Patch by me, reviewed by Peter Eisentraut, Stephen Frost, and others.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5889.1566415762@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit 5770172cb0 wrote, incorrectly, that
certain schema usage patterns are secure against CREATEROLE users and
database owners. When an untrusted user is the database owner or holds
CREATEROLE privilege, a query is secure only if its session started with
SELECT pg_catalog.set_config('search_path', '', false) or equivalent.
Back-patch to 9.4 (all supported versions).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191013013512.GC4131753@rfd.leadboat.com
This clarifies more how to use and how to take advantage of constraints
when attaching a new partition.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20191028001207.GB23808@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 10
16828d5 has improved ALTER TABLE so as a column addition does not
require a rewrite for a non-NULL default with constant expressions, but
one spot in the documentation did not get updated consistently.
The documentation also now clarifies the fact that this does not apply
if the expression is volatile, where a table rewrite is still required.
Reported-by: Daniel Westermann
Author: Ian Barwick
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Daniel Westermann
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/DB6PR0902MB2184C7D5645CF15D75EB7957D2CF0@DB6PR0902MB2184.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com
Backpatch-through: 11
A few questionable partitioning designs have been cropping up lately
around the mailing lists. Generally, these cases have been partitioning
using too many partitions which have caused performance or OOM problems for
the users.
Since we have very little else to guide users into good design, here we
add a new section to the partitioning documentation with some best
practise guidelines for good design.
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby, Amit Langote, Alvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f-2rx+E9mG3xrCVHupefMjAp1+tpczQa9SEOZWyU7fjEA@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 10
Continuous operation cannot be achieved without applying this technique,
so it needs to be properly described.
Author: Álvaro Herrera
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8756.1556302759@sss.pgh.pa.us
This got forgotten in f56f8f which has added foreign key support for
partitioned tables. In passing, add a mention about caveats applying to
tables partitioned using inheritance regarding indexes and foreign keys.
Author: Paul A Jungwirth
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+renyUuSmYgmZjKc_DfUNVZ0uttF91-FwhDVW3F7WEPj0jL5w@mail.gmail.com
The interaction of these parameters was a bit confused/confusing,
and in fact v11 entirely misses the opportunity to apply partition
constraints when a partition is accessed directly (rather than
indirectly from its parent).
In HEAD, establish the principle that enable_partition_pruning controls
partition pruning and nothing else. When accessing a partition via its
parent, we do partition pruning (if enabled by enable_partition_pruning)
and then there is no need to consider partition constraints in the
constraint_exclusion logic. When accessing a partition directly, its
partition constraints are applied by the constraint_exclusion logic,
only if constraint_exclusion = on.
In v11, we can't have such a clean division of these GUCs' effects,
partly because we don't want to break compatibility too much in a
released branch, and partly because the clean coding requires
inheritance_planner to have applied partition pruning to a partitioned
target table, which it doesn't in v11. However, we can tweak things
enough to cover the missed case, which seems like a good idea since
it's potentially a performance regression from v10. This patch keeps
v11's previous behavior in which enable_partition_pruning overrides
constraint_exclusion for an inherited target table, though.
In HEAD, also teach relation_excluded_by_constraints that it's okay to use
inheritable constraints when trying to prune a traditional inheritance
tree. This might not be thought worthy of effort given that that feature
is semi-deprecated now, but we have enough infrastructure that it only
takes a couple more lines of code to do it correctly.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9813f079-f16b-61c8-9ab7-4363cab28d80@lab.ntt.co.jp
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/29069.1555970894@sss.pgh.pa.us
This is an SQL-standard feature that allows creating columns that are
computed from expressions rather than assigned, similar to a view or
materialized view but on a column basis.
This implements one kind of generated column: stored (computed on
write). Another kind, virtual (computed on read), is planned for the
future, and some room is left for it.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b151f851-4019-bdb1-699e-ebab07d2f40a@2ndquadrant.com
1. The PARTITION OF clause of CREATE FOREIGN TABLE was not explained in
the CREATE FOREIGN TABLE reference page. Add it.
(Postgres 10 onwards)
2. The limitation that tuple routing cannot target partitions that are
foreign tables was not documented clearly enough. Improve wording.
(Postgres 10 onwards)
3. The UPDATE tuple re-routing concurrency behavior was explained in
the DDL chapter, which doesn't seem the right place. Move it to the
UPDATE reference page instead. (Postgres 11 onwards).
Authors: Amit Langote, David Rowley.
Reviewed-by: Etsuro Fujita.
Reported-by: Derek Hans
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGrP7a3Xc1Qy_B2WJcgAD8uQTS_NDcJn06O5mtS_Ne1nYhBsyw@mail.gmail.com
We still require AccessExclusiveLock on the partition itself, because
otherwise an insert that violates the newly-imposed partition
constraint could be in progress at the same time that we're changing
that constraint; only the lock level on the parent relation is
weakened.
To make this safe, we have to cope with (at least) three separate
problems. First, relevant DDL might commit while we're in the process
of building a PartitionDesc. If so, find_inheritance_children() might
see a new partition while the RELOID system cache still has the old
partition bound cached, and even before invalidation messages have
been queued. To fix that, if we see that the pg_class tuple seems to
be missing or to have a null relpartbound, refetch the value directly
from the table. We can't get the wrong value, because DETACH PARTITION
still requires AccessExclusiveLock throughout; if we ever want to
change that, this will need more thought. In testing, I found it quite
difficult to hit even the null-relpartbound case; the race condition
is extremely tight, but the theoretical risk is there.
Second, successive calls to RelationGetPartitionDesc might not return
the same answer. The query planner will get confused if lookup up the
PartitionDesc for a particular relation does not return a consistent
answer for the entire duration of query planning. Likewise, query
execution will get confused if the same relation seems to have a
different PartitionDesc at different times. Invent a new
PartitionDirectory concept and use it to ensure consistency. This
ensures that a single invocation of either the planner or the executor
sees the same view of the PartitionDesc from beginning to end, but it
does not guarantee that the planner and the executor see the same
view. Since this allows pointers to old PartitionDesc entries to
survive even after a relcache rebuild, also postpone removing the old
PartitionDesc entry until we're certain no one is using it.
For the most part, it seems to be OK for the planner and executor to
have different views of the PartitionDesc, because the executor will
just ignore any concurrently added partitions which were unknown at
plan time; those partitions won't be part of the inheritance
expansion, but invalidation messages will trigger replanning at some
point. Normally, this happens by the time the very next command is
executed, but if the next command acquires no locks and executes a
prepared query, it can manage not to notice until a new transaction is
started. We might want to tighten that up, but it's material for a
separate patch. There would still be a small window where a query
that started just after an ATTACH PARTITION command committed might
fail to notice its results -- but only if the command starts before
the commit has been acknowledged to the user. All in all, the warts
here around serializability seem small enough to be worth accepting
for the considerable advantage of being able to add partitions without
a full table lock.
Although in general the consequences of new partitions showing up
between planning and execution are limited to the query not noticing
the new partitions, run-time partition pruning will get confused in
that case, so that's the third problem that this patch fixes.
Run-time partition pruning assumes that indexes into the PartitionDesc
are stable between planning and execution. So, add code so that if
new partitions are added between plan time and execution time, the
indexes stored in the subplan_map[] and subpart_map[] arrays within
the plan's PartitionedRelPruneInfo get adjusted accordingly. There
does not seem to be a simple way to generalize this scheme to cope
with partitions that are removed, mostly because they could then get
added back again with different bounds, but it works OK for added
partitions.
This code does not try to ensure that every backend participating in
a parallel query sees the same view of the PartitionDesc. That
currently doesn't matter, because we never pass PartitionDesc
indexes between backends. Each backend will ignore the concurrently
added partitions which it notices, and it doesn't matter if different
backends are ignoring different sets of concurrently added partitions.
If in the future that matters, for example because we allow writes in
parallel query and want all participants to do tuple routing to the same
set of partitions, the PartitionDirectory concept could be improved to
share PartitionDescs across backends. There is a draft patch to
serialize and restore PartitionDescs on the thread where this patch
was discussed, which may be a useful place to start.
Patch by me. Thanks to Alvaro Herrera, David Rowley, Simon Riggs,
Amit Langote, and Michael Paquier for discussion, and to Alvaro
Herrera for some review.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmobt2upbSocvvDej3yzokd7AkiT+PvgFH+a9-5VV1oJNSQ@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZE0r9-cyA-aY6f8WFEROaDLLL7Vf81kZ8MtFCkxpeQSw@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoY13KQZF-=HNTrt9UYWYx3_oYOQpu9ioNT49jGgiDpUEA@mail.gmail.com
The current wording can confuse the reader about constraint exclusion
being available at query execution, but this only applies to partition
pruning.
Reported-by: Shouyu Luo
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Chapman Flack, Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15629-2ef8b22e61f8333f@postgresql.org
In commit f16241bef7, we have changed the behavior for concurrent updates
that move row to a different partition, but forgot to update the docs.
Previously when an UPDATE command causes a row to move from one partition
to another, there is a chance that another concurrent UPDATE or DELETE
misses this row. However, now we raise a serialization failure error in
such a case.
Reported-by: David Rowley
Author: David Rowley and Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 11 where it was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f-iVhGD4-givQWpSROaYvO3c730W8yoRMTF9Gc3craY3w@mail.gmail.com
This restriction is implicit in the check-only-once implementation we use
for table and domain constraints, but it wasn't spelled out anywhere, nor
was there any advice about how to alter a constraint's behavior safely.
Improve that.
I was also dissatisfied with the documentation of ALTER DOMAIN VALIDATE
CONSTRAINT, which entirely failed to explain the use of that feature; and
thence decided that ALTER TABLE VALIDATE CONSTRAINT could be documented
better as well.
Perhaps we should back-patch this, along with the related commit 36d442a25,
but for now I refrained.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/12539.1544107316@sss.pgh.pa.us
Expand section 5.6 "Privileges" to include the full definition of
each privilege type, and an explanation of aclitem privilege displays,
along with some helpful summary tables. Most of this material came
out of the GRANT reference page, although some of it is new.
Adjust a bunch of links that were pointing to GRANT to point to 5.6.
Fabien Coelho and Tom Lane, reviewed by Bradley DeJong
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/alpine.DEB.2.21.1807311735200.20743@lancre
David Rowley
Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut
Michael Paquier
Bruce Momjian
Andres Freund
Noah Misch
Robert Haas
Amit Kapila