Before this change FunctionCallInfoData, the struct arguments etc for
V1 function calls are stored in, always had space for
FUNC_MAX_ARGS/100 arguments, storing datums and their nullness in two
arrays. For nearly every function call 100 arguments is far more than
needed, therefore wasting memory. Arg and argnull being two separate
arrays also guarantees that to access a single argument, two
cachelines have to be touched.
Change the layout so there's a single variable-length array with pairs
of value / isnull. That drastically reduces memory consumption for
most function calls (on x86-64 a two argument function now uses
64bytes, previously 936 bytes), and makes it very likely that argument
value and its nullness are on the same cacheline.
Arguments are stored in a new NullableDatum struct, which, due to
padding, needs more memory per argument than before. But as usually
far fewer arguments are stored, and individual arguments are cheaper
to access, that's still a clear win. It's likely that there's other
places where conversion to NullableDatum arrays would make sense,
e.g. TupleTableSlots, but that's for another commit.
Because the function call information is now variable-length
allocations have to take the number of arguments into account. For
heap allocations that can be done with SizeForFunctionCallInfoData(),
for on-stack allocations there's a new LOCAL_FCINFO(name, nargs) macro
that helps to allocate an appropriately sized and aligned variable.
Some places with stack allocation function call information don't know
the number of arguments at compile time, and currently variably sized
stack allocations aren't allowed in postgres. Therefore allow for
FUNC_MAX_ARGS space in these cases. They're not that common, so for
now that seems acceptable.
Because of the need to allocate FunctionCallInfo of the appropriate
size, older extensions may need to update their code. To avoid subtle
breakages, the FunctionCallInfoData struct has been renamed to
FunctionCallInfoBaseData. Most code only references FunctionCallInfo,
so that shouldn't cause much collateral damage.
This change is also a prerequisite for more efficient expression JIT
compilation (by allocating the function call information on the stack,
allowing LLVM to optimize it away); previously the size of the call
information caused problems inside LLVM's optimizer.
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180605172952.x34m5uz6ju6enaem@alap3.anarazel.de
Previously this information was computed when JIT compiling an
expression. But the information is useful for assertions in the
non-JIT case too (for assertions), therefore it makes sense to move
it.
This will, in a followup commit, allow to treat different slot types
differently. E.g. for virtual slots there's no need to generate a JIT
function to deform the slot.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
This mainly de-duplicates code. As evaluating a system variable isn't
the hottest path and the current inline implementation ends up calling
out to an external function anyway, this is OK from a performance POV.
The main motivation for de-duplicating is the upcoming slot
abstraction work, after which there's not guaranteed to be a HeapTuple
backing the slot.
Author: Andres Freund, Amit Khandekar
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
The EvalPlanQual machinery assumes that any initplans (that is,
uncorrelated sub-selects) used during an EPQ recheck would have already
been evaluated during the main query; this is implicit in the fact that
execPlan pointers are not copied into the EPQ estate's es_param_exec_vals.
But it's possible for that assumption to fail, if the initplan is only
reached conditionally. For example, a sub-select inside a CASE expression
could be reached during a recheck when it had not been previously, if the
CASE test depends on a column that was just updated.
This bug is old, appearing to date back to my rewrite of EvalPlanQual in
commit 9f2ee8f28, but was not detected until Kyle Samson reported a case.
To fix, force all not-yet-evaluated initplans used within the EPQ plan
subtree to be evaluated at the start of the recheck, before entering the
EPQ environment. This could be inefficient, if such an initplan is
expensive and goes unused again during the recheck --- but that's piling
one layer of improbability atop another. It doesn't seem worth adding
more complexity to prevent that, at least not in the back branches.
It was convenient to use the new-in-v11 ExecEvalParamExecParams function
to implement this, but I didn't like either its name or the specifics of
its API, so revise that.
Back-patch all the way. Rather than rewrite the patch to avoid depending
on bms_next_member() in the oldest branches, I chose to back-patch that
function into 9.4 and 9.3. (This isn't the first time back-patches have
needed that, and it exhausted my patience.) I also chose to back-patch
some test cases added by commits 71404af2a and 342a1ffa2 into 9.4 and 9.3,
so that the 9.x versions of eval-plan-qual.spec are all the same.
Andrew Gierth diagnosed the problem and contributed the added test cases,
though the actual code changes are by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/A033A40A-B234-4324-BE37-272279F7B627@tripadvisor.com
Performing JIT compilation for deforming gains performance benefits
over unJITed deforming from compile-time knowledge of the tuple
descriptor. Fixed column widths, NOT NULLness, etc can be taken
advantage of.
Right now the JITed deforming is only used when deforming tuples as
part of expression evaluation (and obviously only if the descriptor is
known). It's likely to be beneficial in other cases, too.
By default tuple deforming is JITed whenever an expression is JIT
compiled. There's a separate boolean GUC controlling it, but that's
expected to be primarily useful for development and benchmarking.
Docs will follow in a later commit containing docs for the whole JIT
feature.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de
This has a performance benefit on own, although not hugely so. The
primary benefit is that it will allow for to JIT tuple deforming and
comparator invocations.
Large parts of this were previously committed (773aec7aa), but the
commit contained an omission around cross-type comparisons and was
thus reverted.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171129080934.amqqkke2zjtekd4t@alap3.anarazel.de
This reverts commit 773aec7aa9.
There's an unresolved issue in the reverted commit: It only creates
one comparator function, but in for the nodeSubplan.c case we need
more (c.f. FindTupleHashEntry vs LookupTupleHashEntry calls in
nodeSubplan.c).
This isn't too difficult to fix, but it's not entirely trivial
either. The fact that the issue only causes breakage on 32bit systems
shows that the current test coverage isn't that great. To avoid
turning half the buildfarm red till those two issues are addressed,
revert.
Previously aggregate transition and combination functions were invoked
by special case code in nodeAgg.c, evaluating input and filters
separately using the expression evaluation machinery. That turns out
to not be great for performance for several reasons:
- repeated expression evaluations have some cost
- the transition functions invocations are poorly predicted, as
commonly there are multiple aggregates in a query, resulting in the
same call-stack invoking different functions.
- filter and input computation had to be done separately
- the special case code made it hard to implement JITing of the whole
transition function invocation
Address this by building one large expression that computes input,
evaluates filters, and invokes transition functions.
This leads to moderate speedups in queries bottlenecked by aggregate
computations, and enables large speedups for similar cases once JITing
is done.
There's potential for further improvement:
- It'd be nice if we could simplify the somewhat expensive
aggstate->all_pergroups lookups.
- right now there's still an advance_transition_function invocation in
nodeAgg.c, leading to some code duplication.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de
This reduces code duplication a bit, but the primary benefit that it
makes JITing expression evaluation easier. When doing so we can't, as
previously done in the interpreted case, really change opcode without
recompiling. Nor dow we just carry around unnecessary branches to
avoid re-checking over and over.
As a minor side-effect this makes ExecEvalStepOp() O(log(N)) rather
than O(N).
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de
This patch does three interrelated things:
* Create a new expression execution step type EEOP_PARAM_CALLBACK
and add the infrastructure needed for add-on modules to generate that.
As discussed, the best control mechanism for that seems to be to add
another hook function to ParamListInfo, which will be called by
ExecInitExpr if it's supplied and a PARAM_EXTERN Param is found.
For stand-alone expressions, we add a new entry point to allow the
ParamListInfo to be specified directly, since it can't be retrieved
from the parent plan node's EState.
* Redesign the API for the ParamListInfo paramFetch hook so that the
ParamExternData array can be entirely virtual. This also lets us get rid
of ParamListInfo.paramMask, instead leaving it to the paramFetch hook to
decide which param IDs should be accessible or not. plpgsql_param_fetch
was already doing the identical masking check, so having callers do it too
seemed redundant. While I was at it, I added a "speculative" flag to
paramFetch that the planner can specify as TRUE to avoid unwanted failures.
This solves an ancient problem for plpgsql that it couldn't provide values
of non-DTYPE_VAR variables to the planner for fear of triggering premature
"record not assigned yet" or "field not found" errors during planning.
* Rework plpgsql to get rid of the need for "unshared" parameter lists,
by dint of turning the single ParamListInfo per estate into a nearly
read-only data structure that doesn't instantiate any per-variable data.
Instead, the paramFetch hook controls access to per-variable data and can
make the right decisions on the fly, replacing the cases that we used to
need multiple ParamListInfos for. This might perhaps have been a
performance loss on its own, but by using a paramCompile hook we can
bypass plpgsql_param_fetch entirely during normal query execution.
(It's now only called when, eg, we copy the ParamListInfo into a cursor
portal. copyParamList() or SerializeParamList() effectively instantiate
the virtual parameter array as a simple physical array without a
paramFetch hook, which is what we want in those cases.) This allows
reverting most of commit 6c82d8d1f, though I kept the cosmetic
code-consolidation aspects of that (eg the assign_simple_var function).
Performance testing shows this to be at worst a break-even change,
and it can provide wins ranging up to 20% in test cases involving
accesses to fields of "record" variables. The fact that values of
such variables can now be exposed to the planner might produce wins
in some situations, too, but I've not pursued that angle.
In passing, remove the "parent" pointer from the arguments to
ExecInitExprRec and related functions, instead storing that pointer in a
transient field in ExprState. The ParamListInfo pointer for a stand-alone
expression is handled the same way; we'd otherwise have had to add
yet another recursively-passed-down argument in expression compilation.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/32589.1513706441@sss.pgh.pa.us
If a PARAM_EXEC parameter is used below a Gather (Merge) but the InitPlan
that computes it is attached to or above the Gather (Merge), force the
value to be computed before starting parallelism and pass it down to all
workers. This allows us to use parallelism in cases where it previously
would have had to be rejected as unsafe. We do - in this case - lose the
optimization that the value is only computed if it's actually used. An
alternative strategy would be to have the first worker that needs the value
compute it, but one downside of that approach is that we'd then need to
select a parallel-safe path to compute the parameter value; it couldn't for
example contain a Gather (Merge) node. At some point in the future, we
might want to consider both approaches.
Independent of that consideration, there is a great deal more work that
could be done to make more kinds of PARAM_EXEC parameters parallel-safe.
This infrastructure could be used to allow a Gather (Merge) on the inner
side of a nested loop (although that's not a very appealing plan) and
cases where the InitPlan is attached below the Gather (Merge) could be
addressed as well using various techniques. But this is a good start.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and revised by me. Reviewing and testing from
Kuntal Ghosh, Haribabu Kommi, and Tushar Ahuja.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1LV0Y1AUV4cUCdC+sYOx0Z0-8NAJ2Pd9=UKsbQ5Sr7+JQ@mail.gmail.com
Allowing arrays with a domain type as their element type was left un-done
in the original domain patch, but not for any very good reason. This
omission leads to such surprising results as array_agg() not working on
a domain column, because the parser can't identify a suitable output type
for the polymorphic aggregate.
In order to fix this, first clean up the APIs of coerce_to_domain() and
some internal functions in parse_coerce.c so that we consistently pass
around a CoercionContext along with CoercionForm. Previously, we sometimes
passed an "isExplicit" boolean flag instead, which is strictly less
information; and coerce_to_domain() didn't even get that, but instead had
to reverse-engineer isExplicit from CoercionForm. That's contrary to the
documentation in primnodes.h that says that CoercionForm only affects
display and not semantics. I don't think this change fixes any live bugs,
but it makes things more consistent. The main reason for doing it though
is that now build_coercion_expression() receives ccontext, which it needs
in order to be able to recursively invoke coerce_to_target_type().
Next, reimplement ArrayCoerceExpr so that the node does not directly know
any details of what has to be done to the individual array elements while
performing the array coercion. Instead, the per-element processing is
represented by a sub-expression whose input is a source array element and
whose output is a target array element. This simplifies life in
parse_coerce.c, because it can build that sub-expression by a recursive
invocation of coerce_to_target_type(). The executor now handles the
per-element processing as a compiled expression instead of hard-wired code.
The main advantage of this is that we can use a single ArrayCoerceExpr to
handle as many as three successive steps per element: base type conversion,
typmod coercion, and domain constraint checking. The old code used two
stacked ArrayCoerceExprs to handle type + typmod coercion, which was pretty
inefficient, and adding yet another array deconstruction to do domain
constraint checking seemed very unappetizing.
In the case where we just need a single, very simple coercion function,
doing this straightforwardly leads to a noticeable increase in the
per-array-element runtime cost. Hence, add an additional shortcut evalfunc
in execExprInterp.c that skips unnecessary overhead for that specific form
of expression. The runtime speed of simple cases is within 1% or so of
where it was before, while cases that previously required two levels of
array processing are significantly faster.
Finally, create an implicit array type for every domain type, as we do for
base types, enums, etc. Everything except the array-coercion case seems
to just work without further effort.
Tom Lane, reviewed by Andrew Dunstan
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9852.1499791473@sss.pgh.pa.us
Add missing infrastructure for this node type, notably in ruleutils.c where
its lack could demonstrably cause EXPLAIN to fail. Add outfuncs/readfuncs
support. (outfuncs support is useful today for debugging purposes. The
readfuncs support may never be needed, since at present it would only
matter for parallel query and NextValueExpr should never appear in a
parallelizable query; but it seems like a bad idea to have a primnode type
that isn't fully supported here.) Teach planner infrastructure that
NextValueExpr is a volatile, parallel-unsafe, non-leaky expression node
with cost cpu_operator_cost. Given its limited scope of usage, there
*might* be no live bug today from the lack of that knowledge, but it's
certainly going to bite us on the rear someday. Teach pg_stat_statements
about the new node type, too.
While at it, also teach cost_qual_eval() that MinMaxExpr, SQLValueFunction,
XmlExpr, and CoerceToDomain should be charged as cpu_operator_cost.
Failing to do this for SQLValueFunction was an oversight in my commit
0bb51aa96. The others are longer-standing oversights, but no time like the
present to fix them. (In principle, CoerceToDomain could have cost much
higher than this, but it doesn't presently seem worth trying to examine the
domain's constraints here.)
Modify execExprInterp.c to execute NextValueExpr as an out-of-line
function; it seems quite unlikely to me that it's worth insisting that
it be inlined in all expression eval methods. Besides, providing the
out-of-line function doesn't stop anyone from inlining if they want to.
Adjust some places where NextValueExpr support had been inserted with the
aid of a dartboard rather than keeping it in the same order as elsewhere.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/23862.1499981661@sss.pgh.pa.us
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
This is the SQL standard-conforming variant of PostgreSQL's serial
columns. It fixes a few usability issues that serial columns have:
- CREATE TABLE / LIKE copies default but refers to same sequence
- cannot add/drop serialness with ALTER TABLE
- dropping default does not drop sequence
- need to grant separate privileges to sequence
- other slight weirdnesses because serial is some kind of special macro
Reviewed-by: Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.burovoy@gmail.com>
This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with
non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation.
Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation.
This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes
future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier.
The speed gains primarily come from:
- non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead
- simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without
function calls
- sharing some state between different sub-expressions
- reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying
out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of
nearly all of the previously used linked lists
- more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding
constant re-checks at evaluation time
Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as
demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later
release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split
between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be
handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the
generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can
easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation.
The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.:
- basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup
overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared
statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where
initialization overhead is measurable.
- optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential
work has already been made.
- optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have
been made here too.
The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some
backward-incompatible changes:
- Function permission checks are now done during expression
initialization, whereas previously they were done during
execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that
previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a
different array type previously didn't perform checks.
- The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once
during expression initialization, previously it was re-built
every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this
doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches
ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior
around might still change.
Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane,
changes by Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
Alvaro Herrera
Andres Freund
Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane
Robert Haas
Peter Eisentraut