The previous coding relied (without any documentation) on the data[]
member of HashMemoryChunkData being at a MAXALIGN'ed offset. If it
was not, the tuples would not be maxaligned either, leading to failures
on alignment-picky machines. While there seems to be no live bug on any
platform we support, this is clearly pretty fragile: any addition to or
rearrangement of the fields in HashMemoryChunkData could break it.
Let's remove the hazard by getting rid of the data[] member and instead
using pointer arithmetic with an explicitly maxalign'ed offset.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/14483.1514938129@sss.pgh.pa.us
In a race case, EXPLAIN ANALYZE could fail to display correct nbatch
and size information. Refactor so that participants report only on
batches they worked on rather than trying to report on all of them,
and teach explain.c to consider the HashInstrumentation object from
all participants instead of picking the first one it can find. This
should fix an occasional build farm failure in the "join" regression
test.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30219.1514428346%40sss.pgh.pa.us
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 a Gather or Gather Merge node is started and stopped multiple
times, accumulate instrumentation data only once, at the end, instead
of after each execution, to avoid recording inflated totals.
Commit 778e78ae9f, the previous attempt
at a fix, instead reset the state after every execution, which worked
for the general instrumentation data but had problems for the additional
instrumentation specific to Sort and Hash nodes.
Report by hubert depesz lubaczewski. Analysis and fix by Amit Kapila,
following a design proposal from Thomas Munro, with a comment tweak
by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20171127175631.GA405@depesz.com
In order for executor nodes to be able to change their ExecProcNode function
after ExecInitNode() has finished, provide ExecSetExecProcNode(). This allows
any wrappers functions that only execProcnode.c knows about to be reinstalled.
The motivation for wanting to change ExecProcNode after ExecInitNode() has
finished is that it is not known until later whether parallel query is
available, so if a parallel variant is to be installed then ExecInitNode()
is too soon to decide.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=09rr65VN+cAV5FgyM_z=D77Xy8Fuc9CDDDYbq3pQUezg@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
It's most often the case that the target list for the Gather (Merge)
node matches the target list supplied by the underlying plan node;
when this is so, we can avoid the overhead of projecting.
This depends on commit f455e1125e for
proper functioning.
Idea by Andres Freund. Patch by me. Review by Amit Kapila.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZ0ZL=cesZFq8c9NnfK6bqy-wwUd3_74iYGodYrSoQ7Fw@mail.gmail.com
Previously, executor nodes running in parallel worker processes didn't
have access to the dsm_segment object used for parallel execution. In
order to support resource management based on DSM segment lifetime,
they need that. So create a ParallelWorkerContext object to hold it
and pass it to all InitializeWorker functions.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.com
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
Some code is moved from partition.c, which has grown very quickly lately;
splitting the executor parts out might help to keep it from getting
totally out of control. Other code is moved from execMain.c. All is
moved to a new file execPartition.c. get_partition_for_tuple now has
a new interface that more clearly separates executor concerns from
generic concerns.
Amit Langote. A slight comment tweak by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/1f0985f8-3b61-8bc4-4350-baa6d804cb6d@lab.ntt.co.jp
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>
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
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 logical decoding functions do BeginInternalSubTransaction and
RollbackAndReleaseCurrentSubTransaction to clean up after themselves.
It turns out that AtEOSubXact_SPI has an unrecognized assumption that
we always need to cancel the active SPI operation in the SPI context
that surrounds the subtransaction (if there is one). That's true
when the RollbackAndReleaseCurrentSubTransaction call is coming from
the SPI-using function itself, but not when it's happening inside
some unrelated function invoked by a SPI query. In practice the
affected callers are the various PLs.
To fix, record the current subtransaction ID when we begin a SPI
operation, and clean up only if that ID is the subtransaction being
canceled.
Also, remove AtEOSubXact_SPI's assertion that it must have cleaned
up the surrounding SPI context's active tuptable. That's proven
wrong by the same test case.
Also clarify (or, if you prefer, reinterpret) the calling conventions
for _SPI_begin_call and _SPI_end_call. The memory context cleanup
in the latter means that these have always had the flavor of a matched
resource-management pair, but they weren't documented that way before.
Per report from Ben Chobot.
Back-patch to 9.4 where logical decoding came in. In principle,
the SPI changes should go all the way back, since the problem dates
back to commit 7ec1c5a86. But given the lack of field complaints
it seems few people are using internal subtransactions in this way.
So I don't feel a need to take any risks in 9.2/9.3.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/73FBA179-C68C-4540-9473-71E865408B15@silentmedia.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
It is equivalent in ANSI C to write (*funcptr) () and funcptr(). These
two styles have been applied inconsistently. After discussion, we'll
use the more verbose style for plain function pointer variables, to make
it clear that it's a variable, and the shorter style when the function
pointer is in a struct (s.func() or s->func()), because then it's clear
that it's not a plain function name, and otherwise the excessive
punctuation makes some of those invocations hard to read.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f52c16db-14ed-757d-4b48-7ef360b1631d@2ndquadrant.com
This doesn't allow routing tuple to the foreign partitions themselves,
but it permits tuples to be routed to regular partitions despite the
presence of foreign partitions in the same inheritance hierarchy.
Etsuro Fujita, reviewed by Amit Langote and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/bc3db4c1-1693-3b8a-559f-33ad2b50b7ad@lab.ntt.co.jp
Move the responsibility for creating/destroying TupleQueueReaders into
execParallel.c, to avoid duplicative coding in nodeGather.c and
nodeGatherMerge.c. Also, instead of having DestroyTupleQueueReader do
shm_mq_detach, do it in the caller (which is now only ExecParallelFinish).
This means execParallel.c does both the attaching and detaching of the
tuple-queue-reader shm_mqs, which seems less weird than the previous
arrangement.
These changes also eliminate a vestigial memory leak (of the pei->tqueue
array). It's now demonstrable that rescans of Gather or GatherMerge don't
leak memory.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8670.1504192177@sss.pgh.pa.us
Previously, the parallel executor logic did reinitialization of shared
state within the ExecReScan code for parallel-aware scan nodes. This is
problematic, because it means that the ExecReScan call has to occur
synchronously (ie, during the parent Gather node's ReScan call). That is
swimming very much against the tide so far as the ExecReScan machinery is
concerned; the fact that it works at all today depends on a lot of fragile
assumptions, such as that no plan node between Gather and a parallel-aware
scan node is parameterized. Another objection is that because ExecReScan
might be called in workers as well as the leader, hacky extra tests are
needed in some places to prevent unwanted shared-state resets.
Hence, let's separate this code into two functions, a ReInitializeDSM
call and the ReScan call proper. ReInitializeDSM is called only in
the leader and is guaranteed to run before we start new workers.
ReScan is returned to its traditional function of resetting only local
state, which means that ExecReScan's usual habits of delaying or
eliminating child rescan calls are safe again.
As with the preceding commit 7df2c1f8d, it doesn't seem to be necessary
to make these changes in 9.6, which is a good thing because the FDW and
CustomScan APIs are impacted.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JkByysFJNh9M349u_nNjqETuEnY_y1VUc_kJiU0bxtaQ@mail.gmail.com
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
This allows us to add stack-depth checks the first time an executor
node is called, and skip that overhead on following
calls. Additionally it yields a nice speedup.
While it'd probably have been a good idea to have that check all
along, it has become more important after the new expression
evaluation framework in b8d7f053c5 - there's no stack depth
check in common paths anymore now. We previously relied on
ExecEvalExpr() being executed somewhere.
We should move towards that model for further routines, but as this is
required for v10, it seems better to only do the necessary (which
already is quite large).
Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane
Reported-By: Julien Rouhaud
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.ushttps://postgr.es/m/b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com
Before, we always used a dummy value of 1, but that's not right when
the partitioned table being modified is inside of a WITH clause
rather than part of the main query.
Amit Langote, reported and reviewd by Etsuro Fujita, with a comment
change by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/ee12f648-8907-77b5-afc0-2980bcb0aa37@lab.ntt.co.jp
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
Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they
flow past the right margin.
By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are
within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding
left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the
continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin,
then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin,
if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of
the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations
unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column
limit.
This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers.
Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized
lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren.
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
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
The new indent version includes numerous fixes thanks to Piotr Stefaniak.
The main changes visible in this commit are:
* Nicer formatting of function-pointer declarations.
* No longer unexpectedly removes spaces in expressions using casts,
sizeof, or offsetof.
* No longer wants to add a space in "struct structname *varname", as
well as some similar cases for const- or volatile-qualified pointers.
* Declarations using PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY are formatted more nicely.
* Fixes bug where comments following declarations were sometimes placed
with no space separating them from the code.
* Fixes some odd decisions for comments following case labels.
* Fixes some cases where comments following code were indented to less
than the expected column 33.
On the less good side, it now tends to put more whitespace around typedef
names that are not listed in typedefs.list. This might encourage us to
put more effort into typedef name collection; it's not really a bug in
indent itself.
There are more changes coming after this round, having to do with comment
indentation and alignment of lines appearing within parentheses. I wanted
to limit the size of the diffs to something that could be reviewed without
one's eyes completely glazing over, so it seemed better to split up the
changes as much as practical.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
We used to only check for a supported relkind on the subscriber during
replication, which is needed to ensure that the setup is valid and we
don't crash. But it's also useful to tell the user immediately when
CREATE or ALTER SUBSCRIPTION is executed that the relation being added
to the subscription is not of a supported relkind.
Author: Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>
Reported-by: tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com>
Since it appears that v10 is going to move the goalposts by some amount
in terms of where you can and can't invoke set-returning functions,
arrange for the executor's "set-valued function called in context that
cannot accept a set" errors to include a syntax position if possible,
pointing to the specific SRF that can't be called where it's located.
The main bit of infrastructure needed for this is to make the query source
text accessible in the executor; but it turns out that commit 4c728f382
already did that. We just need a new function executor_errposition()
modeled on parser_errposition(), and we're ready to rock.
While experimenting with this, I noted that the error position wasn't
properly reported if it occurred in a plpgsql FOR-over-query loop,
which turned out to be because SPI_cursor_open_internal wasn't providing
an error context callback during PortalStart. Fix that.
There's a whole lot more that could be done with this infrastructure
now that it's there, but this is not the right time in the development
cycle for that sort of work. Hence, resist the temptation to plaster
executor_errposition() calls everywhere ... for the moment.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5263.1492471571@sss.pgh.pa.us
We'd already recognized that we can't pass function pointers across process
boundaries for functions in loadable modules, since a shared library could
get loaded at different addresses in different processes. But actually the
practice doesn't work for functions in the core backend either, if we're
using EXEC_BACKEND. This is the cause of recent failures on buildfarm
member culicidae. Switch to passing a string function name in all cases.
Something like this needs to be back-patched into 9.6, but let's see
if the buildfarm likes it first.
Petr Jelinek, with a bunch of basically-cosmetic adjustments by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/548f9c1d-eafa-e3fa-9da8-f0cc2f654e60@2ndquadrant.com
We decided in f1b4c771ea to pass the
original slot to ExecConstraints(), but that breaks when there are
BEFORE ROW triggers involved. So we need to do reverse-map the tuples
back to the original descriptor instead, as Amit originally proposed.
Amit Langote, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat. One overlooked comment
fixed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/b3a17254-6849-e542-2353-bde4e880b6a4@lab.ntt.co.jp
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>
Commit 59702716 added transition table support to PL/pgsql so that
SQL queries in trigger functions could access those transient
tables. In order to provide the same level of support for PL/perl,
PL/python and PL/tcl, refactor the relevant code into a new
function SPI_register_trigger_data. Call the new function in the
trigger handler of all four PLs, and document it as a public SPI
function so that authors of out-of-tree PLs can do the same.
Also get rid of a second QueryEnvironment object that was
maintained by PL/pgsql. That was previously used to deal with
cursors, but the same approach wasn't appropriate for PLs that are
less tangled up with core code. Instead, have SPI_cursor_open
install the connection's current QueryEnvironment, as already
happens for SPI_execute_plan.
While in the docs, remove the note that transition tables were only
supported in C and PL/pgSQL triggers, and correct some ommissions.
Thomas Munro with some work by Kevin Grittner (mostly docs)
A QueryEnvironment concept is added, which allows new types of
objects to be passed into queries from parsing on through
execution. At this point, the only thing implemented is a
collection of EphemeralNamedRelation objects -- relations which
can be referenced by name in queries, but do not exist in the
catalogs. The only type of ENR implemented is NamedTuplestore, but
provision is made to add more types fairly easily.
An ENR can carry its own TupleDesc or reference a relation in the
catalogs by relid.
Although these features can be used without SPI, convenience
functions are added to SPI so that ENRs can easily be used by code
run through SPI.
The initial use of all this is going to be transition tables in
AFTER triggers, but that will be added to each PL as a separate
commit.
An incidental effect of this patch is to produce a more informative
error message if an attempt is made to modify the contents of a CTE
from a referencing DML statement. No tests previously covered that
possibility, so one is added.
Kevin Grittner and Thomas Munro
Reviewed by Heikki Linnakangas, David Fetter, and Thomas Munro
with valuable comments and suggestions from many others
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
Previously, it was unsafe to execute a plan in parallel if
ExecutorRun() might be called with a non-zero row count. However,
it's quite easy to fix things up so that we can support that case,
provided that it is known that we will never call ExecutorRun() a
second time for the same QueryDesc. Add infrastructure to signal
this, and cross-checks to make sure that a caller who claims this is
true doesn't later reneg.
While that pattern never happens with queries received directly from a
client -- there's no way to know whether multiple Execute messages
will be sent unless the first one requests all the rows -- it's pretty
common for queries originating from procedural languages, which often
limit the result to a single tuple or to a user-specified number of
tuples.
This commit doesn't actually enable parallelism in any additional
cases, because currently none of the places that would be able to
benefit from this infrastructure pass CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK in the
first place, but it makes it much more palatable to pass
CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK in places where we currently don't, because it
eliminates some cases where we'd end up having to run the parallel
plan serially.
Patch by me, based on some ideas from Rafia Sabih and corrected by
Rafia Sabih based on feedback from Dilip Kumar and myself.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobXEhvHbJtWDuPZM9bVSLiTj-kShxQJ2uM5GPDze9fRYA@mail.gmail.com
Partitioned tables do not contain any data; only their unpartitioned
descendents need to be scanned. However, the partitioned tables still
need to be locked, even though they're not scanned. To make that
work, Append and MergeAppend relations now need to carry a list of
(unscanned) partitioned relations that must be locked, and InitPlan
must lock all partitioned result relations.
Aside from the obvious advantage of avoiding some work at execution
time, this has two other advantages. First, it may improve the
planner's decision-making in some cases since the empty relation
might throw things off. Second, it paves the way to getting rid of
the storage for partitioned tables altogether.
Amit Langote, reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/6837c359-45c4-8044-34d1-736756335a15@lab.ntt.co.jp
Like Gather, we spawn multiple workers and run the same plan in each
one; however, Gather Merge is used when each worker produces the same
output ordering and we want to preserve that output ordering while
merging together the streams of tuples from various workers. (In a
way, Gather Merge is like a hybrid of Gather and MergeAppend.)
This works out to a win if it saves us from having to perform an
expensive Sort. In cases where only a small amount of data would need
to be sorted, it may actually be faster to use a regular Gather node
and then sort the results afterward, because Gather Merge sometimes
needs to wait synchronously for tuples whereas a pure Gather generally
doesn't. But if this avoids an expensive sort then it's a win.
Rushabh Lathia, reviewed and tested by Amit Kapila, Thomas Munro,
and Neha Sharma, and reviewed and revised by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAGPqQf09oPX-cQRpBKS0Gq49Z+m6KBxgxd_p9gX8CKk_d75HoQ@mail.gmail.com
The index is scanned by a single process, but then all cooperating
processes can iterate jointly over the resulting set of heap blocks.
In the future, we might also want to support using a parallel bitmap
index scan to set up for a parallel bitmap heap scan, but that's a
job for another day.
Dilip Kumar, with some corrections and cosmetic changes by me. The
larger patch set of which this is a part has been reviewed and tested
by (at least) Andres Freund, Amit Khandekar, Tushar Ahuja, Rafia
Sabih, Haribabu Kommi, Thomas Munro, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFiTN-uc4=0WxRGfCzs-xfkMYcSEWUC-Fon6thkJGjkh9i=13A@mail.gmail.com
Tom Lane
Andres Freund
Peter Eisentraut
Robert Haas
Bruce Momjian
Kevin Grittner