The previous coding attempts to destroy the DSM in this case, but
child nodes might have stored data there and still be holding onto
pointers in this case. So don't do that.
Also, free the reader array instead of leaking it.
Extracted from two different patch versions both by Amit Kapila.
The patches committed as 6e71dd7ce9
and 3a1f8611f2 were developed in
parallel but dependent on each other in a way that I failed to
notice.
This patch to fix the problem was prepared by Amit Kapila.
Commit 4a4e6893aa, which introduced this
mechanism, failed to account for the fact that the RECORD pseudo-type
uses transient typmods that are only meaningful within a single
backend. Transferring such tuples without modification between two
cooperating backends does not work. This commit installs a system
for passing the tuple descriptors over the same shm_mq being used to
send the tuples themselves. The two sides might not assign the same
transient typmod to any given tuple descriptor, so we must also
substitute the appropriate receiver-side typmod for the one used by
the sender. That adds some CPU overhead, but still seems better than
being unable to pass records between cooperating parallel processes.
Along the way, move the logic for handling multiple tuple queues from
tqueue.c to nodeGather.c; tqueue.c now provides a TupleQueueReader,
which reads from a single queue, rather than a TupleQueueFunnel, which
potentially reads from multiple queues. This change was suggested
previously as a way to make sure that nodeGather.c rather than tqueue.c
had policy control over the order in which to read from queues, but
it wasn't clear to me until now how good an idea it was. typmod
mapping needs to be performed separately for each queue, and it is
much simpler if the tqueue.c code handles that and leaves multiplexing
multiple queues to higher layers of the stack.
Commit b0b0d84b3d purported to make it
possible to relaunch workers using the same parallel context, but it had
an unpleasant race condition: we might reinitialize after the workers
have sent their last control message but before they have dettached the
DSM, leaving to crashes. Repair by introducing a new ParallelContext
operation, ReinitializeParallelDSM.
Adjust execParallel.c to use this new support, so that we can rescan a
Gather node by relaunching workers but without needing to recreate the
DSM.
Amit Kapila, with some adjustments by me. Extracted from latest parallel
sequential scan patch.
The original Gather code failed to mark a Gather node as not able to
do projection, but it couldn't, even though it did call initialize its
projection info via ExecAssignProjectionInfo. There doesn't seem to
be any good reason for this node not to have projection capability,
so clean things up so that it does. Without this, plans using Gather
nodes might need to carry extra Result nodes to do projection.
In the previous coding, before returning from ExecutorRun, we'd shut
down all parallel workers. This was dead wrong if ExecutorRun was
called with a non-zero tuple count; it had the effect of truncating
the query output. To fix, give ExecutePlan control over whether to
enter parallel mode, and have it refuse to do so if the tuple count
is non-zero. Rewrite the Gather logic so that it can cope with being
called outside parallel mode.
Commit 7aea8e4f2d is largely to blame
for this problem, though this patch modifies some subsequently-committed
code which relied on the guarantees it purported to make.
A Gather executor node runs any number of copies of a plan in an equal
number of workers and merges all of the results into a single tuple
stream. It can also run the plan itself, if the workers are
unavailable or haven't started up yet. It is intended to work with
the Partial Seq Scan node which will be added in future commits.
It could also be used to implement parallel query of a different sort
by itself, without help from Partial Seq Scan, if the single_copy mode
is used. In that mode, a worker executes the plan, and the parallel
leader does not, merely collecting the worker's results. So, a Gather
node could be inserted into a plan to split the execution of that plan
across two processes. Nested Gather nodes aren't currently supported,
but we might want to add support for that in the future.
There's nothing in the planner to actually generate Gather nodes yet,
so it's not quite time to break out the champagne. But we're getting
close.
Amit Kapila. Some designs suggestions were provided by me, and I also
reviewed the patch. Single-copy mode, documentation, and other minor
changes also by me.
Robert Haas
Tom Lane