It turns out that after runtime partition pruning, Append's
first_partial_plan does not accurately represent partial plans to run,
if any of those got pruned. This could limit participation of workers
in some partial subplans, if other subplans got pruned. Fix it by
keeping an index of the first valid partial subplan in the state node,
determined at execnode Init time.
Author: David Rowley, with cosmetic changes by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f8o2Yd=rOP=Et3A0FWgF+gSAOkFSU6eNhnGzTPV7nN8sQ@mail.gmail.com
This reverts commits d204ef6377,
83454e3c2b and a few more commits thereafter
(complete list at the end) related to MERGE feature.
While the feature was fully functional, with sufficient test coverage and
necessary documentation, it was felt that some parts of the executor and
parse-analyzer can use a different design and it wasn't possible to do that in
the available time. So it was decided to revert the patch for PG11 and retry
again in the future.
Thanks again to all reviewers and bug reporters.
List of commits reverted, in reverse chronological order:
f1464c5380 Improve parse representation for MERGE
ddb4158579 MERGE syntax diagram correction
530e69e59b Allow cpluspluscheck to pass by renaming variable
01b88b4df5 MERGE minor errata
3af7b2b0d4 MERGE fix variable warning in non-assert builds
a5d86181ec MERGE INSERT allows only one VALUES clause
4b2d44031f MERGE post-commit review
4923550c20 Tab completion for MERGE
aa3faa3c7a WITH support in MERGE
83454e3c2b New files for MERGE
d204ef6377 MERGE SQL Command following SQL:2016
Author: Pavan Deolasee
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
The HeapFetches counter was using a simple value in IndexOnlyScanState,
which fails to propagate values from parallel workers; so the counts are
wrong when IndexOnlyScan runs in parallel. Move it to Instrumentation,
like all the other counters.
While at it, change INSERT ON CONFLICT conflicting tuple counter to use
the new ntuples2 instead of nfiltered2, which is a blatant misuse.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180409215851.idwc75ct2bzi6tea@alvherre.pgsql
Existing partition pruning is only able to work at plan time, for query
quals that appear in the parsed query. This is good but limiting, as
there can be parameters that appear later that can be usefully used to
further prune partitions.
This commit adds support for pruning subnodes of Append which cannot
possibly contain any matching tuples, during execution, by evaluating
Params to determine the minimum set of subnodes that can possibly match.
We support more than just simple Params in WHERE clauses. Support
additionally includes:
1. Parameterized Nested Loop Joins: The parameter from the outer side of the
join can be used to determine the minimum set of inner side partitions to
scan.
2. Initplans: Once an initplan has been executed we can then determine which
partitions match the value from the initplan.
Partition pruning is performed in two ways. When Params external to the plan
are found to match the partition key we attempt to prune away unneeded Append
subplans during the initialization of the executor. This allows us to bypass
the initialization of non-matching subplans meaning they won't appear in the
EXPLAIN or EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
For parameters whose value is only known during the actual execution
then the pruning of these subplans must wait. Subplans which are
eliminated during this stage of pruning are still visible in the EXPLAIN
output. In order to determine if pruning has actually taken place, the
EXPLAIN ANALYZE must be viewed. If a certain Append subplan was never
executed due to the elimination of the partition then the execution
timing area will state "(never executed)". Whereas, if, for example in
the case of parameterized nested loops, the number of loops stated in
the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for certain subplans may appear lower than
others due to the subplan having been scanned fewer times. This is due
to the list of matching subnodes having to be evaluated whenever a
parameter which was found to match the partition key changes.
This commit required some additional infrastructure that permits the
building of a data structure which is able to perform the translation of
the matching partition IDs, as returned by get_matching_partitions, into
the list index of a subpaths list, as exist in node types such as
Append, MergeAppend and ModifyTable. This allows us to translate a list
of clauses into a Bitmapset of all the subpath indexes which must be
included to satisfy the clause list.
Author: David Rowley, based on an earlier effort by Beena Emerson
Reviewers: Amit Langote, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi,
Jesper Pedersen
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApE16ac-_VVZVvv0gePSgkg_BwYEV1NBqZFqDR2bBE0X0A@mail.gmail.com
This patch introduces INCLUDE clause to index definition. This clause
specifies a list of columns which will be included as a non-key part in
the index. The INCLUDE columns exist solely to allow more queries to
benefit from index-only scans. Also, such columns don't need to have
appropriate operator classes. Expressions are not supported as INCLUDE
columns since they cannot be used in index-only scans.
Index access methods supporting INCLUDE are indicated by amcaninclude flag
in IndexAmRoutine. For now, only B-tree indexes support INCLUDE clause.
In B-tree indexes INCLUDE columns are truncated from pivot index tuples
(tuples located in non-leaf pages and high keys). Therefore, B-tree indexes
now might have variable number of attributes. This patch also provides
generic facility to support that: pivot tuples contain number of their
attributes in t_tid.ip_posid. Free 13th bit of t_info is used for indicating
that. This facility will simplify further support of index suffix truncation.
The changes of above are backward-compatible, pg_upgrade doesn't need special
handling of B-tree indexes for that.
Bump catalog version
Author: Anastasia Lubennikova with contribition by Alexander Korotkov and me
Reviewed by: Peter Geoghegan, Tomas Vondra, Antonin Houska, Jeff Janes,
David Rowley, Alexander Korotkov
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/56168952.4010101@postgrespro.ru
Also enable this for postgres_fdw.
Etsuro Fujita, based on an earlier patch by Amit Langote. The larger
patch series of which this is a part has been reviewed by Amit
Langote, David Fetter, Maksim Milyutin, Álvaro Herrera, Stephen Frost,
and me. Minor documentation changes to the final version by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/29906a26-da12-8c86-4fb9-d8f88442f2b9@lab.ntt.co.jp
MERGE performs actions that modify rows in the target table
using a source table or query. MERGE provides a single SQL
statement that can conditionally INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE rows
a task that would other require multiple PL statements.
e.g.
MERGE INTO target AS t
USING source AS s
ON t.tid = s.sid
WHEN MATCHED AND t.balance > s.delta THEN
UPDATE SET balance = t.balance - s.delta
WHEN MATCHED THEN
DELETE
WHEN NOT MATCHED AND s.delta > 0 THEN
INSERT VALUES (s.sid, s.delta)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
DO NOTHING;
MERGE works with regular and partitioned tables, including
column and row security enforcement, as well as support for
row, statement and transition triggers.
MERGE is optimized for OLTP and is parameterizable, though
also useful for large scale ETL/ELT. MERGE is not intended
to be used in preference to existing single SQL commands
for INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE since there is some overhead.
MERGE can be used statically from PL/pgSQL.
MERGE does not yet support inheritance, write rules,
RETURNING clauses, updatable views or foreign tables.
MERGE follows SQL Standard per the most recent SQL:2016.
Includes full tests and documentation, including full
isolation tests to demonstrate the concurrent behavior.
This version written from scratch in 2017 by Simon Riggs,
using docs and tests originally written in 2009. Later work
from Pavan Deolasee has been both complex and deep, leaving
the lead author credit now in his hands.
Extensive discussion of concurrency from Peter Geoghegan,
with thanks for the time and effort contributed.
Various issues reported via sqlsmith by Andreas Seltenreich
Authors: Pavan Deolasee, Simon Riggs
Reviewer: Peter Geoghegan, Amit Langote, Tomas Vondra, Simon Riggs
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkJdBuxj9PO=2QaO9-3h3xGbQPZ34kJH=HukRekwM-GZg@mail.gmail.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
Commit eb7ed3f306 enabled unique constraints on partitioned tables,
but one thing that was not working properly is INSERT/ON CONFLICT.
This commit introduces a new node keeps state related to the ON CONFLICT
clause per partition, and fills it when that partition is about to be
used for tuple routing.
Author: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera
Reviewed-by: Etsuro Fujita, Pavan Deolasee
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180228004602.cwdyralmg5ejdqkq@alvherre.pgsql
For any interesting JIT target, fields inside structs need to be
accessed. b96d550e contains infrastructure for syncing the definition
of types between postgres C code and runtime code generation with
LLVM. But that doesn't sync the number or names of fields inside
structs, just the types (including padding etc).
One option would be to hardcode the offset numbers in the JIT code,
but that'd be hard to keep in sync. Instead add macros indicating the
field offset to the fields that need to be accessed. Not pretty, but
manageable.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de
This adds simple cost based plan time decision about whether JIT
should be performed. jit_above_cost, jit_optimize_above_cost are
compared with the total cost of a plan, and if the cost is above them
JIT is performed / optimization is performed respectively.
For that PlannedStmt and EState have a jitFlags (es_jit_flags) field
that stores information about what JIT operations should be performed.
EState now also has a new es_jit field, which can store a
JitContext. When there are no errors the context is released in
standard_ExecutorEnd().
It is likely that the default values for jit_[optimize_]above_cost
will need to be adapted further, but in my test these values seem to
work reasonably.
Author: Andres Freund, with feedback by Peter Eisentraut
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de
These values can be obtained from the ModifyTable node which is already
a part of both the ModifyTableState and ExecInsert.
Author: Álvaro Herrera, Amit Langote
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180316151303.rml2p5wffn3o6qy6@alvherre.pgsql
We make some changes to ModifyTableState and the EState it uses whenever
we route tuples to partitions; but we weren't restoring properly in all
cases, possibly causing crashes when partitions with different tuple
descriptors are targeted by tuples inserted in the same command.
Refactor some code, creating ExecPrepareTupleRouting, to encapsulate the
needed state changing logic, and have it invoked one level above its
current place (ie. put it in ExecModifyTable instead of ExecInsert);
this makes it all more readable.
Add a test case to exercise this.
We don't support having views as partitions; and since only views can
have INSTEAD OF triggers, there is no point in testing for INSTEAD OF
when processing insertions into a partitioned table. Remove code that
appears to support this (but which is actually never relevant.)
In passing, fix location of some very confusing comments in
ModifyTableState.
Reported-by: Amit Langote
Author: Etsuro Fujita, Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr/es/m/0473bf5c-57b1-f1f7-3d58-455c2230bc5f@lab.ntt.co.jp
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.
Doing so causes EXPLAIN ANALYZE to show trigger statistics multiple
times. Commit 2f17844104 seems to
be to blame for this.
Amit Langote, revieed by Amit Khandekar, Etsuro Fujita, and me.
This patch adds the ability to use "RANGE offset PRECEDING/FOLLOWING"
frame boundaries in window functions. We'd punted on that back in the
original patch to add window functions, because it was not clear how to
do it in a reasonably data-type-extensible fashion. That problem is
resolved here by adding the ability for btree operator classes to provide
an "in_range" support function that defines how to add or subtract the
RANGE offset value. Factoring it this way also allows the operator class
to avoid overflow problems near the ends of the datatype's range, if it
wishes to expend effort on that. (In the committed patch, the integer
opclasses handle that issue, but it did not seem worth the trouble to
avoid overflow failures for datetime types.)
The patch includes in_range support for the integer_ops opfamily
(int2/int4/int8) as well as the standard datetime types. Support for
other numeric types has been requested, but that seems like suitable
material for a follow-on patch.
In addition, the patch adds GROUPS mode which counts the offset in
ORDER-BY peer groups rather than rows, and it adds the frame_exclusion
options specified by SQL:2011. As far as I can see, we are now fully
up to spec on window framing options.
Existing behaviors remain unchanged, except that I changed the errcode
for a couple of existing error reports to meet the SQL spec's expectation
that negative "offset" values should be reported as SQLSTATE 22013.
Internally and in relevant parts of the documentation, we now consistently
use the terminology "offset PRECEDING/FOLLOWING" rather than "value
PRECEDING/FOLLOWING", since the term "value" is confusingly vague.
Oliver Ford, reviewed and whacked around some by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGMVOdu9sivPAxbNN0X+q19Sfv9edEPv=HibOJhB14TJv_RCQg@mail.gmail.com
To make this work, tuplesort.c and logtape.c must also support
parallelism, so this patch adds that infrastructure and then applies
it to the particular case of parallel btree index builds. Testing
to date shows that this can often be 2-3x faster than a serial
index build.
The model for deciding how many workers to use is fairly primitive
at present, but it's better than not having the feature. We can
refine it as we get more experience.
Peter Geoghegan with some help from Rushabh Lathia. While Heikki
Linnakangas is not an author of this patch, he wrote other patches
without which this feature would not have been possible, and
therefore the release notes should possibly credit him as an author
of this feature. Reviewed by Claudio Freire, Heikki Linnakangas,
Thomas Munro, Tels, Amit Kapila, me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM3SWZQKM=Pzc=CAHzRixKjp2eO5Q0Jg1SoFQqeXFQ647JiwqQ@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=AxWqDoVvGU7dq856S4r6sJAj6DBn7VMtigkB33N5eyg@mail.gmail.com
When an UPDATE causes a row to no longer match the partition
constraint, try to move it to a different partition where it does
match the partition constraint. In essence, the UPDATE is split into
a DELETE from the old partition and an INSERT into the new one. This
can lead to surprising behavior in concurrency scenarios because
EvalPlanQual rechecks won't work as they normally did; the known
problems are documented. (There is a pending patch to improve the
situation further, but it needs more review.)
Amit Khandekar, reviewed and tested by Amit Langote, David Rowley,
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Dilip Kumar, Amul Sul, Thomas Munro, Álvaro
Herrera, Amit Kapila, and me. A few final revisions by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9do9o2ccQ7j7+tSgiE1REY65XRiMb=yJO3u3QhyP8EEPQ@mail.gmail.com
When CREATE INDEX is run on a partitioned table, create catalog entries
for an index on the partitioned table (which is just a placeholder since
the table proper has no data of its own), and recurse to create actual
indexes on the existing partitions; create them in future partitions
also.
As a convenience gadget, if the new index definition matches some
existing index in partitions, these are picked up and used instead of
creating new ones. Whichever way these indexes come about, they become
attached to the index on the parent table and are dropped alongside it,
and cannot be dropped on isolation unless they are detached first.
To support pg_dump'ing these indexes, add commands
CREATE INDEX ON ONLY <table>
(which creates the index on the parent partitioned table, without
recursing) and
ALTER INDEX ATTACH PARTITION
(which is used after the indexes have been created individually on each
partition, to attach them to the parent index). These reconstruct prior
database state exactly.
Reviewed-by: (in alphabetical order) Peter Eisentraut, Robert Haas, Amit
Langote, Jesper Pedersen, Simon Riggs, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171113170646.gzweigyrgg6pwsg4@alvherre.pgsql
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
Instead of having ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting return multiple out
parameters, have it return a pointer to a structure containing all of
those different things. Also, provide and use a cleanup function,
ExecCleanupTupleRouting, instead of cleaning up all of the resources
allocated by ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting individually.
Amit Khandekar, reviewed by Amit Langote, David Rowley, and me
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9fWfxgKC+PfJZF3hkgAcNOy-LpfPxVYitDEXKHjeieWQQ@mail.gmail.com
- Remove unnecessary #include mistakenly added in execnodes.h.
- Fix mistake in comment in choose_next_subplan_for_leader.
- Adjust row estimates in cost_append for a possibly-different
parallel divisor.
- Clamp row estimates in cost_append after operations that may
not produce integers.
Amit Kapila, with cosmetic adjustments by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+qcbeai3coPpRW=GFCzFeLUsuY4T-AKHqMjxpEGZBPQg@mail.gmail.com
Previously aggregate transition values for hash and other forms of
aggregation (i.e. sort and no group by) were represented
differently. Hash based aggregation used a grouping set indexed array
pointing to an array of transition values, whereas other forms of
aggregation used one flattened array with the index being computed out
of grouping set and transition offsets.
That made upcoming changes hard, so represent both as grouping set
indexed array of per-group data.
As a nice side-effect this also makes aggregation slightly faster,
because computing offsets with `transno + (setno * numTrans)` turns
out not to be that cheap (too big for x86 lea for example).
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171128003121.nmxbm2ounxzb6n2t@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
Introduce parallel-aware hash joins that appear in EXPLAIN plans as Parallel
Hash Join with Parallel Hash. While hash joins could already appear in
parallel queries, they were previously always parallel-oblivious and had a
partial subplan only on the outer side, meaning that the work of the inner
subplan was duplicated in every worker.
After this commit, the planner will consider using a partial subplan on the
inner side too, using the Parallel Hash node to divide the work over the
available CPU cores and combine its results in shared memory. If the join
needs to be split into multiple batches in order to respect work_mem, then
workers process different batches as much as possible and then work together
on the remaining batches.
The advantages of a parallel-aware hash join over a parallel-oblivious hash
join used in a parallel query are that it:
* avoids wasting memory on duplicated hash tables
* avoids wasting disk space on duplicated batch files
* divides the work of building the hash table over the CPUs
One disadvantage is that there is some communication between the participating
CPUs which might outweigh the benefits of parallelism in the case of small
hash tables. This is avoided by the planner's existing reluctance to supply
partial plans for small scans, but it may be necessary to estimate
synchronization costs in future if that situation changes. Another is that
outer batch 0 must be written to disk if multiple batches are required.
A potential future advantage of parallel-aware hash joins is that right and
full outer joins could be supported, since there is a single set of matched
bits for each hashtable, but that is not yet implemented.
A new GUC enable_parallel_hash is defined to control the feature, defaulting
to on.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Robert Haas
Tested-By: Rafia Sabih, Prabhat Sahu
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
When we create an Append node, we can spread out the workers over the
subplans instead of piling on to each subplan one at a time, which
should typically be a bit more efficient, both because the startup
cost of any plan executed entirely by one worker is paid only once and
also because of reduced contention. We can also construct Append
plans using a mix of partial and non-partial subplans, which may allow
for parallelism in places that otherwise couldn't support it.
Unfortunately, this patch doesn't handle the important case of
parallelizing UNION ALL by running each branch in a separate worker;
the executor infrastructure is added here, but more planner work is
needed.
Amit Khandekar, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, reviewed and tested by
Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Langote, Rafia Sabih, Amit Kapila, and
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9dy0K_E8r727heqXoBmWZ83HwLFwdcaSSmBQ1+S+vRuUQ@mail.gmail.com
If a hash join appears in a parallel query, there may be no hash table
available for explain.c to inspect even though a hash table may have
been built in other processes. This could happen either because
parallel_leader_participation was set to off or because the leader
happened to hit the end of the outer relation immediately (even though
the complete relation is not empty) and decided not to build the hash
table.
Commit bf11e7ee introduced a way for workers to exchange
instrumentation via the DSM segment for Sort nodes even though they
are not parallel-aware. This commit does the same for Hash nodes, so
that explain.c has a way to find instrumentation data from an
arbitrary participant that actually built the hash table.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D3DUQC2-z252N55eOcZBer6DPdM%3DFzrxH9dZc5vYLsjaA%40mail.gmail.com
The lower case spellings are C and C++ standard and are used in most
parts of the PostgreSQL sources. The upper case spellings are only used
in some files/modules. So standardize on the standard spellings.
The APIs for ICU, Perl, and Windows define their own TRUE and FALSE, so
those are left as is when using those APIs.
In code comments, we use the lower-case spelling for the C concepts and
keep the upper-case spelling for the SQL concepts.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
If we don't have to return any columns from heap tuples, and there's
no need to recheck qual conditions, and the heap page is all-visible,
then we can skip fetching the heap page altogether.
Skip prefetching pages too, when possible, on the assumption that the
recheck flag will remain the same from one page to the next. While that
assumption is hardly bulletproof, it seems like a good bet most of the
time, and better than prefetching pages we don't need.
This commit installs the executor infrastructure, but doesn't change
any planner cost estimates, thus possibly causing bitmap scans to
not be chosen in cases where this change renders them the best choice.
I (tgl) am not entirely convinced that we need to account for this
behavior in the planner, because I think typically the bitmap scan would
get chosen anyway if it's the best bet. In any case the submitted patch
took way too many shortcuts, resulting in too many clearly-bad choices,
to be committable.
Alexander Kuzmenkov, reviewed by Alexey Chernyshov, and whacked around
rather heavily by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/239a8955-c0fc-f506-026d-c837e86c827b@postgrespro.ru
If we try to run a parallel plan in serial mode because, for example,
it's going to be scanned via a cursor, but for some reason we're
already in parallel mode (for example because an outer query is
running in parallel), we'd incorrectly try to launch workers.
Fix by adding a flag to the EState, so that we can be certain that
ExecutePlan() and ExecGather()/ExecGatherMerge() will have the same
idea about whether we are executing serially or in parallel.
Report and fix by Amit Kapila with help from Kuntal Ghosh. A few
tweaks by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+_BuZrmVCeua5Eqnm4Co9DAXdM5HPAOE2J19ePbR912Q@mail.gmail.com
An aggregate's input expression(s) are not supposed to be evaluated
at all for a row where its FILTER test fails ... but commit 8ed3f11bb
overlooked that requirement. Reshuffle so that aggregates having a
filter clause evaluate their arguments separately from those without.
This still gets the benefit of doing only one ExecProject in the
common case of multiple Aggrefs, none of which have filters.
While at it, arrange for filter clauses to be included in the common
ExecProject evaluation, thus perhaps buying a little bit even when
there are filters.
Back-patch to v10 where the bug was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30065.1508161354@sss.pgh.pa.us
The previous convention doesn't lend itself to creating ResultRelInfos
lazily, as we already do in ExecGetTriggerResultRel. This patch
doesn't make anything lazier than before, but the pending patch for
UPDATE tuple routing proposes to do so (and there might be other
opportunities as well).
Amit Khandekar with some adjustments by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYPVP9Lyf6vUFA5DwxS4c--x6LOj2y36BsJaYtp62eXPQ@mail.gmail.com
If we merge the transition calculations for two different aggregates,
it's reasonable to assume that the transition function should not care
which of those Aggref structs it gets from AggGetAggref(). It is not
reasonable to make the same assumption about an aggregate final function,
however. Commit 804163bc2 broke this, as it will pass whichever Aggref
was first associated with the transition state in both cases.
This doesn't create an observable bug so far as the core system is
concerned, because the only existing uses of AggGetAggref() are in
ordered-set aggregates that happen to not pay attention to anything
but the input properties of the Aggref; and besides that, we disabled
sharing of transition calculations for OSAs yesterday. Nonetheless,
if some third-party code were using AggGetAggref() in a normal aggregate,
they would be entitled to call this a bug. Hence, back-patch the fix
to 9.6 where the problem was introduced.
In passing, improve some of the comments about transition state sharing.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAB4ELO5RZhOamuT9Xsf72ozbenDLLXZKSk07FiSVsuJNZB861A@mail.gmail.com
Previously nodeProjectSet only released memory once per input tuple,
rather than once per returned tuple. If the computation of an
individual returned tuple requires a lot of memory, that can lead to
problems.
Instead change things so that the expression context can be reset once
per output tuple, which requires a new memory context to store SRF
arguments in.
This is a longstanding issue, but was hard to fix before 9.6, due to
the way tSRFs where evaluated. But it's fairly easy to fix now. We
could backpatch this into 10, but given there've been fewc omplaints
that doesn't seem worth the risk so far.
Reported-By: Lucas Fairchild
Author: Andres Freund, per discussion with Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4514.1507318623@sss.pgh.pa.us
The standard says that all changes of the same kind (insert, update, or
delete) caused in one table by a single SQL statement should be reported
in a single transition table; and by that, they mean to include foreign key
enforcement actions cascading from the statement's direct effects. It's
also reasonable to conclude that if the standard had wCTEs, they would say
that effects of wCTEs applying to the same table as each other or the outer
statement should be merged into one transition table. We weren't doing it
like that.
Hence, arrange to merge tuples from multiple update actions into a single
transition table as much as we can. There is a problem, which is that if
the firing of FK enforcement triggers and after-row triggers with
transition tables is interspersed, we might need to report more tuples
after some triggers have already seen the transition table. It seems like
a bad idea for the transition table to be mutable between trigger calls.
There's no good way around this without a major redesign of the FK logic,
so for now, resolve it by opening a new transition table each time this
happens.
Also, ensure that AFTER STATEMENT triggers fire just once per statement,
or once per transition table when we're forced to make more than one.
Previous versions of Postgres have allowed each FK enforcement query
to cause an additional firing of the AFTER STATEMENT triggers for the
referencing table, but that's certainly not per spec. (We're still
doing multiple firings of BEFORE STATEMENT triggers, though; is that
something worth changing?)
Also, forbid using transition tables with column-specific UPDATE triggers.
The spec requires such transition tables to show only the tuples for which
the UPDATE trigger would have fired, which means maintaining multiple
transition tables or else somehow filtering the contents at readout.
Maybe someday we'll bother to support that option, but it looks like a
lot of trouble for a marginal feature.
The transition tables are now managed by the AfterTriggers data structures,
rather than being directly the responsibility of ModifyTable nodes. This
removes a subtransaction-lifespan memory leak introduced by my previous
band-aid patch 3c4359521.
In passing, refactor the AfterTriggers data structures to reduce the
management overhead for them, by using arrays of structs rather than
several parallel arrays for per-query-level and per-subtransaction state.
I failed to resist the temptation to do some copy-editing on the SGML
docs about triggers, above and beyond merely documenting the effects
of this patch.
Back-patch to v10, because we don't want the semantics of transition
tables to change post-release.
Patch by me, with help and review from Thomas Munro.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170909064853.25630.12825@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Rescanning a GatherMerge led to leaking some memory in the executor's
query-lifespan context, because most of the node's working data structures
were simply abandoned and rebuilt from scratch. In practice, this might
never amount to much, given the cost of relaunching worker processes ---
but it's still pretty messy, so let's fix it.
We can rearrange things so that the tuple arrays are simply cleared and
reused, and we don't need to rebuild the TupleTableSlots either, just
clear them. One small complication is that because we might get a
different number of workers on each iteration, we can't keep the old
convention that the leader's gm_slots[] entry is the last one; the leader
might clobber a TupleTableSlot that we need for a worker in a future
iteration. Hence, adjust the logic so that the leader has slot 0 always,
while the active workers have slots 1..n.
Back-patch to v10 to keep all the existing versions of nodeGatherMerge.c
in sync --- because of the renumbering of the slots, there would otherwise
be a very large risk that any future backpatches in this module would
introduce bugs.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8670.1504192177@sss.pgh.pa.us
Comment the fields of GatherMergeState, and organize them a bit more
sensibly. Comment GMReaderTupleBuffer more usefully too. Improve
assorted other comments that were obsolete or just not very good English.
Get rid of the use of a GMReaderTupleBuffer for the leader process;
that was confusing, since only the "done" field was used, and that
in a way redundant with need_to_scan_locally.
In gather_merge_init, avoid calling load_tuple_array for
already-known-exhausted workers. I'm not sure if there's a live bug there,
but the case is unlikely to be well tested due to timing considerations.
Remove some useless code, such as duplicating the tts_isempty test done by
TupIsNull.
Remove useless initialization of ps.qual, replacing that with an assertion
that we have no qual to check. (If we did, the code would fail to check
it.)
Avoid applying heap_copytuple to a null tuple. While that fails to crash,
it's confusing and it makes the code less legible not more so IMO.
Propagate a couple of these changes into nodeGather.c, as well.
Back-patch to v10, partly because of the possibility that the
gather_merge_init change is fixing a live bug, but mostly to keep
the branches in sync to ease future bug fixes.
Up until now, when parallel query was used, no details about the
sort method or space used by the workers were available; details
were shown only for any sorting done by the leader. Fix that.
Commit 1177ab1dab forced the test case
added by commit 1f6d515a67 to run
without parallelism; now that we have this infrastructure, allow
that again, with a little tweaking to make it pass with and without
force_parallel_mode.
Robert Haas and Tom Lane
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa2VBZW6S8AAXfhpHczb=Rf6RqQ2br+zJvEgwJ0uoD_tQ@mail.gmail.com
If we only need, say, 10 tuples in total, then we certainly don't need
more than 10 tuples from any single process. Pushing down the limit
lets workers exit early when possible. For Gather Merge, there is
an additional benefit: a Sort immediately below the Gather Merge can
be done as a bounded sort if there is an applicable limit.
Robert Haas and Tom Lane
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYa3QKKrLj5rX7UvGqhH73G1Li4B-EKxrmASaca2tFu9Q@mail.gmail.com
Add a new EState member es_leaf_result_relations, so that the trigger
code knows about ResultRelInfos created by tuple routing. Also make
sure ExplainPrintTriggers knows about partition-related
ResultRelInfos.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Amit Langote
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/57163e18-8e56-da83-337a-22f2c0008051@lab.ntt.co.jp
Alvaro Herrera
Simon Riggs
Teodor Sigaev
Robert Haas
Andres Freund
Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut