Previously, isolationtester displayed SQL query results using some
ad-hoc code that clearly hadn't had much effort expended on it.
Field values longer than 14 characters weren't separated from
the next field, and usually caused misalignment of the columns
too. Also there was no visual separation of a query's result
from subsequent isolationtester output. This made test result
files confusing and hard to read.
To improve matters, let's use libpq's PQprint() function. Although
that's long since unused by psql, it's still plenty good enough
for the purpose here.
Like 741d7f104, back-patch to all supported branches, so that this
isn't a stumbling block for back-patching isolation test changes.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/582362.1623798221@sss.pgh.pa.us
We've long contended with isolation test results that aren't entirely
stable. Some test scripts insert long delays to try to force stable
results, which is not terribly desirable; but other erratic failure
modes remain, causing unrepeatable buildfarm failures. I've spent a
fair amount of time trying to solve this by improving the server-side
support code, without much success: that way is fundamentally unable
to cope with diffs that stem from chance ordering of arrival of
messages from different server processes.
We can improve matters on the client side, however, by annotating
the test scripts themselves to show the desired reporting order
of events that might occur in different orders. This patch adds
three types of annotations to deal with (a) test steps that might or
might not complete their waits before the isolationtester can see them
waiting; (b) test steps in different sessions that can legitimately
complete in either order; and (c) NOTIFY messages that might arrive
before or after the completion of a step in another session. We might
need more annotation types later, but this seems to be enough to deal
with the instabilities we've seen in the buildfarm. It also lets us
get rid of all the long delays that were previously used, cutting more
than a minute off the runtime of the isolation tests.
Back-patch to all supported branches, because the buildfarm
instabilities affect all the branches, and because it seems desirable
to keep isolationtester's capabilities the same across all branches
to simplify possible future back-patching of tests.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/327948.1623725828@sss.pgh.pa.us
Same as 5e0b1aeb2d, for the companion test file.
This one seems lower probability (only two failures in a month of runs);
I was hardly able to reproduce a failure without a patch, so the fact
that I was also unable to reproduce one with it doesn't say anything.
We'll have to wait for further buildfarm results to see if we need any
further adjustments.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210524090712.GA3771394@rfd.leadboat.com
During queries coming from ri_triggers.c, we need to omit partitions
that are marked pending detach -- otherwise, the RI query is tricked
into allowing a row into the referencing table whose corresponding row
is in the detached partition. Which is bogus: once the detach operation
completes, the row becomes an orphan.
However, the code was not doing that in repeatable-read transactions,
because relcache kept a copy of the partition descriptor that included
the partition, and used it in the RI query. This commit changes the
partdesc cache code to only keep descriptors that aren't dependent on
a snapshot (namely: those where no detached partition exist, and those
where detached partitions are included). When a partdesc-without-
detached-partitions is requested, we create one afresh each time; also,
those partdescs are stored in PortalContext instead of
CacheMemoryContext.
find_inheritance_children gets a new output *detached_exist boolean,
which indicates whether any partition marked pending-detach is found.
Its "include_detached" input flag is changed to "omit_detached", because
that name captures desired the semantics more naturally.
CreatePartitionDirectory() and RelationGetPartitionDesc() arguments are
identically renamed.
This was noticed because a buildfarm member that runs with relcache
clobbering, which would not keep the improperly cached partdesc, broke
one test, which led us to realize that the expected output of that test
was bogus. This commit also corrects that expected output.
Author: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3269784.1617215412@sss.pgh.pa.us
Allow a partition be detached from its partitioned table without
blocking concurrent queries, by running in two transactions and only
requiring ShareUpdateExclusive in the partitioned table.
Because it runs in two transactions, it cannot be used in a transaction
block. This is the main reason to use dedicated syntax: so that users
can choose to use the original mode if they need it. But also, it
doesn't work when a default partition exists (because an exclusive lock
would still need to be obtained on it, in order to change its partition
constraint.)
In case the second transaction is cancelled or a crash occurs, there's
ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION .. FINALIZE, which executes the final
steps.
The main trick to make this work is the addition of column
pg_inherits.inhdetachpending, initially false; can only be set true in
the first part of this command. Once that is committed, concurrent
transactions that use a PartitionDirectory will include or ignore
partitions so marked: in optimizer they are ignored if the row is marked
committed for the snapshot; in executor they are always included. As a
result, and because of the way PartitionDirectory caches partition
descriptors, queries that were planned before the detach will see the
rows in the detached partition and queries that are planned after the
detach, won't.
A CHECK constraint is created that duplicates the partition constraint.
This is probably not strictly necessary, and some users will prefer to
remove it afterwards, but if the partition is re-attached to a
partitioned table, the constraint needn't be rechecked.
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200803234854.GA24158@alvherre.pgsql
Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera